2019 (7) TMI 196 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - illegal availment of CENVAT credit without actual receipt of inputs/raw materials - fake invoices - HELD THAT - It is a settled principle of rule of evidence that admission needs no further proof (Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act). Therefore, the only dispute concerning which appellants are before this forum is the duty demand on the balance of raw material that was found to have short fall during physical stock taking done by DGCEI. Appellants attributed the loss to pilferage and mud deposit but simultaneously admitted through the statement of Managing Director that concerning pilferage, no police report was lodged nor any record was produced to substantiate the same. Having regard to Rule 9(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 whereby burden of proof is on the appellants to establish the admissibility of CENVAT credit, there is no convincing ground established by the appellant that would require interference in the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Confirmation of duty liability, interest, and penalty for alleged illegal availment of CENVAT credit without actual receipt of inputs/raw materials along with penalty on the director.

Analysis:
The case involved the confirmation of duty liability, interest, and equivalent penalty for the alleged illegal availment of CENVAT credit without actual receipt of inputs/raw materials, along with a penalty on the director. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing M.S. Ingots, were found to have irregularly availed CENVAT credit without receiving goods to evade Central Excise duty. A search operation revealed a shortage of raw materials, leading to a duty assessment and subsequent show-cause notice. The Order-in-Original confirmed duty demand, interest, and penalties on both the firm and the director, which were challenged in the appeals.

During the appeal hearing, the appellants did not appear, while the respondent-department was represented. The grounds for challenging the Order-in-Original included objections to the uniform valuation of goods, inability to defend the case due to family disputes and factory closure, and discrepancies in the quantity of scrap received. The respondent-department supported the order, arguing against the appellants' claims of mud deposit and pilferage, emphasizing the burden of proof on the manufacturers to establish the admissibility of CENVAT credit.

The Tribunal examined the case record and found that the appellants had admitted to availing CENVAT credit without receiving raw materials, leading to a duty dispute on the remaining raw material shortfall. The appellants' explanations regarding pilferage and mud deposit lacked substantiating evidence, and the valuation of raw material was based on standard rates due to the appellants' failure to provide procurement or cost price records. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants failed to establish convincing grounds for interference in the Commissioner's order, as per Rule 9(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, placing the burden of proof on the appellants.

Ultimately, both appeals were dismissed, confirming the Commissioner's Order-in-Original and upholding the duty liability, interest, and penalties imposed on the appellants for the illegal availment of CENVAT credit without actual receipt of inputs/raw materials, along with the penalty on the director.