9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 83 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - duty paying invoices - credit availed on the basis of invoices issued by said First Stage Registered Dealers without actually receiving the goods i.e. MS Scrap from them - Burden to prove on Revenue - Held that - The Revenue is not disputing the fact that First Stage Dealers raised invoices giving all the particulars required to be given under the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules in respect of material supplied to the assessee-Appellant. It is also not being disputed that the assessee-Appellant has received inputs and entered the same in their Central Excise records. The said inputs were further used by the assessee-Appellant in the manufacture of their final product which were cleared by them on payment of duty. This fact is sufficient to prove the physical entry of the inputs in the assessee-Appellant s premises. During the course of arguments before this Tribunal, the assessee-Appellant also produced the invoices against which they have availed the Cenvat Credit along with supporting documents including lorry receipts and weighment slips. Therefore, the burden is cast upon the Revenue to prove that it was merely a paper transaction and goods were not received by the assessee-Appellant, which it failed - It is further shown that all the payments made to the First Stage Dealers are through banking channels by way of Cheques/RTGS. The Revenue has not brought on record any evidence to prove any flow back of monies. Also the assessee-Appellant have discharged its onus as required under Rule 9(1) & (5) of CCR, 2004 and as explained by Hon ble Allahabad High Court in its decision in the case of Commissioner Excise Customs and Service Tax Vs Juhi Alloys limited 2014 (1) TMI 1475 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT . Appeal allowed in toto.
Issues Involved:
1. Alleged evasion of Central Excise duty by availing Cenvat Credit on invoices without actual receipt of goods. 2. Validity of evidence and statements relied upon by the Revenue. 3. Compliance with principles of natural justice. 4. Burden of proof regarding the receipt of goods. 5. Relevance of VAT Returns in proving non-receipt of goods. Detailed Analysis: 1. Alleged Evasion of Central Excise Duty: The Department issued a show cause notice alleging that the assessee-Appellant, M/s Prakash Industries Ltd., evaded Central Excise duty by availing Cenvat Credit on invoices issued by First Stage Dealers without actually receiving the goods (MS Scrap). It was alleged that the First Stage Dealers only supplied invoices without supplying the material, and the payments made against these invoices were returned in cash. The Department relied on statements from Pradeep Agarwal and Commercial Tax Returns to substantiate their claim. 2. Validity of Evidence and Statements: The assessee-Appellant refuted the allegations, arguing that they purchased MS Scrap based on 4228 duty-paid invoices along with weighment slips, and made payments through banking channels. They contended that no cash was recovered during the search, and the Revenue did not cross-check the bank accounts of the First Stage Dealers. The Tribunal found that the Revenue's reliance on statements and VAT Returns was based on assumptions and lacked corroborative evidence. The Tribunal noted that the statements of Panch witnesses were unreliable due to their employment with a competitor, and their cross-examinations revealed contradictions. 3. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice: The assessee-Appellant argued that the impugned order violated principles of natural justice as the Revenue did not provide an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements were relied upon. The Tribunal agreed, citing Section 9D (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and relevant case laws, emphasizing that statements recorded without cross-examination have no evidentiary value. 4. Burden of Proof Regarding Receipt of Goods: The Tribunal found that the assessee-Appellant had received inputs and entered them in their Central Excise records, used them in manufacturing, and cleared the final products on payment of duty. The ledger account and RG-23A register, supported by weighment slips, proved the receipt of goods. The Tribunal held that the burden was on the Revenue to prove that the transactions were merely on paper, which they failed to do. 5. Relevance of VAT Returns: The Tribunal found the Revenue's reliance on VAT Returns to be untenable. The VAT Returns pertained to purchases within the State, whereas the purchases in question were from units in Dhanbad, Jharkhand, and thus would not be reflected in the VAT Returns of the First Stage Dealers in Chhattisgarh. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their allegations. The impugned order dated 19.06.2018 was set aside in toto, and all appeals filed by the Appellants were allowed with consequential relief. The judgment emphasized the need for concrete evidence and adherence to natural justice principles in adjudicating such matters.
|
