2019 (6) TMI 1348 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - inputs - steel melting scrap - it was alleged that the steel melting scrap which is an input for appellant No.1 does not include any of the items mentioned in the description of the goods found during the course of investigation - HELD THAT - There is no allegation in the SCN that the goods in question have not been received by appellant No.1 from appellant No.2. In the SCN the only issue is that the goods in question cannot be the inputs to manufacture final products by the appellant No.1. To ascertain such fact, no visit was made by the Revenue in the factory premises of the appellant No.1. No process of manufacturing has been brought on record. Moreover, no evidence has been produced by the Revenue that the said goods have not been diverted to be used by the appellant-manufacturer to manufacture final products, therefore, the allegation made against the appellant is only on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. The Revenue has not come with any evidence to show that the said inputs cannot be used by the appellant-manufacturer to manufacture their final products. No expert opinion has been obtained by the Revenue. No statement of transporter has been recorded to allege diversion of the goods. Therefore, the credit cannot be denied. Diversion of goods and non receipt of goods by the appellant- manufacturer - scope of SCN - HELD THAT - As there is no such allegation in the show cause notice to allege that the goods were never received by the appellant-manufacturer and supplied by the dealer, in that circumstance, the adjudicating authority has gone beyond the scope of show cause notice. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
Denial of Cenvat credit to the manufacturer, Allegation of diversion of goods, Non-receipt of inputs, Scope of show cause notice, Expert opinion on melting of scrap, Lack of evidence of diversion, Allegation of goods being used in open market, Prime quality inputs, Allegation of goods not being suitable inputs, Adjudicating authority exceeding scope of show cause notice.

Analysis:

1. Denial of Cenvat credit to the manufacturer:
The case involved M/s. Addi Alloys P. Ltd., a manufacturer of excisable goods, and M/s. J.S. Steel Traders, a supplier of inputs. The denial of Cenvat credit to the manufacturer was based on the allegation that certain goods supplied by the dealer were not suitable inputs for the manufacturing process of the manufacturer. The adjudicating authority imposed penalties and denied the credit, leading to the appeal.

2. Allegation of diversion of goods and non-receipt of inputs:
The counsel for the appellants argued that there was no allegation of diversion of goods in the show cause notice or non-receipt of inputs by the manufacturer. The adjudicating authority was accused of going beyond the scope of the notice by confirming the demand based on assumptions and presumptions without concrete evidence of diversion or non-receipt.

3. Scope of show cause notice and lack of evidence:
The tribunal noted that the show cause notice did not dispute the receipt of goods by the manufacturer but focused on the suitability of the goods as inputs. The lack of evidence regarding diversion or non-receipt, coupled with the absence of on-site verification or expert opinion, weakened the case against the manufacturer.

4. Expert opinion on melting of scrap:
The absence of expert opinion or pilot experiments regarding the melting of the disputed scrap raised doubts about the validity of the allegations. The tribunal highlighted the importance of substantiating claims with expert analysis to support the denial of Cenvat credit.

5. Allegation of goods being used in the open market and prime quality inputs:
The argument that the goods supplied by the dealer could be used in the open market and were of prime quality was countered by the appellants, who provided evidence of the goods being physically received and used in the manufacturing process. The tribunal emphasized the need for concrete evidence to support such allegations.

6. Adjudicating authority exceeding scope of show cause notice:
The tribunal concluded that the adjudicating authority had overstepped the scope of the show cause notice by alleging diversion of goods and non-receipt without sufficient evidence. Such findings were deemed unsustainable in the absence of concrete proof, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeals with consequential relief.

7. Conclusion:
The tribunal set aside the impugned order, emphasizing the importance of evidence-backed allegations and adherence to the scope of show cause notices in legal proceedings. The denial of Cenvat credit was overturned, and no penalties were imposed on the appellants based on the lack of substantiated claims against them.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the tribunal's reasoning behind setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeals.

← Previous Next →