2019 (7) TMI 556 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - paper/fake transactions - credit denied on the ground that it is mere a paper transaction as they have not received the goods - HELD THAT - No discrepancy was found during the course of investigation, neither the Revenue has proved that if the invoices did not accompany the goods/ raw material then from where the appellants had procured the raw material for manufacturing their final goods which have been cleared on payment of duty. Moreover, no investigation was conducted at the end of the transporters to find out the truth. Merely on the basis of the invoices issued by the supplier, demand cannot be confirmed against the appellants. Therefore, the benefit of doubt goes in the favour of the appellants - Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of Cenvat credit based on alleged non-receipt of goods from supplier.

Analysis:
The appellants, who are manufacturers of M.S. Ingots, appealed against orders denying Cenvat credit on the grounds of a supposed paper transaction due to non-receipt of goods from the supplier, M/s Priya Steels India Ltd. An investigation revealed that the supplier did not have a storage facility, leading to doubts about the receipt of M.S. Billet scraps by the appellants. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants, demanding duty payment, interest, and penalties. The matter was adjudicated, confirming the duty demand and imposing penalties. The appellants contended that they did receive the raw material, as evidenced by the goods used in manufacturing final products cleared after duty payment. The Revenue argued that discrepancies in statements from the supplier and dealer, along with the absence of goods supply confirmation, justified denying Cenvat credit.

The key issue revolved around the alleged non-receipt of goods by the appellants, leading to the denial of Cenvat credit. The appellants maintained that they had indeed received the raw material, which was utilized in manufacturing goods cleared after duty payment. Despite discrepancies in statements and lack of definitive proof of goods receipt, the appellants' argument was supported by the absence of concrete evidence proving non-receipt. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of discrepancies in the investigation and the failure to investigate transporters, emphasizing that mere invoice issuance by the supplier was insufficient to confirm the demand against the appellants. Consequently, the benefit of doubt favored the appellants, resulting in the allowance of the Cenvat credit and the dismissal of proceedings against them.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and ruled in favor of the appellants, emphasizing the insufficiency of evidence to support the denial of Cenvat credit. The judgment underscored the importance of concrete proof in establishing non-receipt of goods and highlighted the need for thorough investigations to substantiate allegations of fraudulent transactions.