2020 (3) TMI 454 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - fake invoices - credit denied on the ground that the appellant has received only cenvatable invoices and not the goods - HELD THAT - Considering the fact that similar investigation has been conducted by the DGCEI against Shri Amit Gupta and show cause notices were issued to the recipients of goods against whom the invoices were issued by Shri Amit Gupta to various firms. One such firm M/s.Unnati Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Neither cross examination of Shri Amit Gupta nor Shri Amit Gupta was made party to the show cause notice which shows that the investigation conducted against the appellant is not proper. Moreover, the transporters were also not examined at all nor made party to the show cause notice. In that circumstance, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the appellant that they have received the goods against cenvatable invoices issued by M/s Unnati Alloys Pvt. Ltd., in question and made payment through account payee cheque. In the present case, the goods received by the appellant for manufacturing of goods, which has been cleared on payment of duty. In that circumstance, Cenvat credit is allowed to the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Denial of credit based on receipt of cenvatable invoices without goods; Proper conduct of investigation and benefit of doubt.

Denial of Credit based on Receipt of Cenvatable Invoices without Goods:
The appellant appealed against the denial of credit due to allegedly receiving only cenvatable invoices without the actual goods. An investigation revealed that one Shri Amit Gupta was involved in passing on inadmissible Cenvat credit through registered dealers, including M/s. Unnati Alloys Pvt. Ltd. The appellant claimed to have received goods against invoices issued by M/s. Unnati Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and made payment through account payee cheque. However, the transporter mentioned in the transactions, M/s. Leo Trans & Logistics, was found non-existent during the investigation. The investigation concluded that the appellant did not receive goods but only cenvatable invoices, leading to the case against the appellant.

Proper Conduct of Investigation and Benefit of Doubt:
During the hearing, it was noted that similar investigations were conducted against Shri Amit Gupta, with show cause notices issued to recipients of goods from him. Notably, neither Shri Amit Gupta nor the transporters were cross-examined or made parties to the show cause notice against the appellant. This raised doubts about the adequacy of the investigation. Considering this, the benefit of doubt was given to the appellant, concluding that they indeed received goods against cenvatable invoices from M/s. Unnati Alloys Pvt. Ltd., made payment through account payee cheque, and used the goods for manufacturing cleared goods. Consequently, the Cenvat credit was allowed, and the show cause notice was deemed unnecessary.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief. The decision was based on the proper evaluation of the investigation, the benefit of doubt in favor of the appellant, and the acknowledgment that the goods were indeed received against cenvatable invoices.