9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 1007 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - fake invoices - credit availed based on invoices without actually receiving the goods - copper ingots/ copper rod purchased from the Jammu based unit which was not received by them as the same was diverted in and around Delhi - statement made by a witness - admissible evidence or not - case of the revenue is mainly based on the report from RTO Check Post Commercial Tax Check Post and investigation carried out with transporter - HELD THAT - As against the evidence relied upon by the revenue in the Show Cause Notice the appellant have brought ample of evidences to prove the receipt of duty paid goods originated from Jammu and use thereof in the manufacture of their final product. There is neither any investigation nor any evidence on the aspects of alleged disposal of disputed inputs in or around Delhi. The investigation could not bring on record the single alleged buyer out of huge quantity of 303MT. Similarly there are no details about transportation of goods or about financial transactions or any flow back from the suppliers of alleged buyers therefore the alleged clandestine disposal of the disputed input remains unsubstantiated. As regard the allegation of the department about the substitution of the disputed inputs by scrap procured from market there is no evidence showing details as to any single supplier of alleged substituted scrap or about transportation thereof or any financial transaction with the alleged suppliers of the substituted scrap. This shows that the department s case of clandestine disposal of the disputed inputs and its substitution by procurement of scrap has no support of any evidence. The case of the revenue is based on some evidences such as RTO Report and Commercial Tax Check post report to allege that as per the said reports the vehicle has not passed from Delhi. On the contrary the respondent have heavily relied upon various documents for movement of receipt of the duty paid copper inputs such as valid Central Excise Invoices delivery challans lorry receipts entries in respondent s stores ledger material inspection reports etc. Against the said transaction payment through official bank channels for the full value of aforesaid duty paid copper inputs has been made against the Central Excise Invoice. It is also not disputed that the payment of the transport charges through the official bank channels to the transporter of copper inputs from Delhi to respondent s job worker s premises has been made - From the documents it clearly shows that the respondent have received the copper goods transported from Jammu based manufacturers to the respondent s job workers. It is found that the revenue could not held the above documents as fake or incorrect. It is evident that except for the evidence in the form of records statements of transporter s employee and check post records the department has not been able to bring any acceptable evidence to prove non- receipt of the duty paid copper inputs . The department also not been able to disprove by any logical means the receipt and use of duty paid copper inputs in the manner prescribed in and due compliance with the provision of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. Alleged use of non-duty paid copper inputs required for manufacture of final product cleared on payment of duty - HELD THAT - The department could not bring anything on record regarding the supplier of non duty paid copper inputs its transportation money transaction etc. Therefore it is proved without any doubt that the respondent have not purchased any non duty paid inputs without any documents to substitute the duty paid inputs therefore on this basis also the department s allegation of non receipt of duty paid goods does not stand. The department in support of their allegation for non receipt of duty paid copper inputs by the Respondent could not bring a single buyer of the duty paid inputs which was alleged to have been diverted in an around Delhi. Therefore in absence of any evidence the entire allegation is based on assumption presumption and conjunctures. It is an admitted fact that the investigating officers have not enquired or investigated even a single supplier as regard actual supply of disputed inputs or as regard payment received by them for the value of disputed inputs. This is very vital to establish that the duty paid goods have not been transported to the respondent but diverted somewhere else. Thus the department could not prove their case. The respondent have correctly taken the Cenvat credit hence there is no infirmity in the impugned order - Revenue s appeal is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent fraudulently availed Cenvat Credit on the basis of invoices without actual receipt of goods. 2. Whether the evidence provided by the Revenue, such as RTO reports and transporter statements, substantiates the claim of non-receipt of goods. 3. Whether the respondent provided sufficient evidence to prove the receipt and use of duty-paid goods. 4. Whether the reliance on third-party statements and documents alone can justify the denial of Cenvat Credit. Issue-wise Analysis: 1. Fraudulent Availment of Cenvat Credit: The Revenue alleged that the respondent availed Cenvat Credit of ?1,63,29,798/- based on invoices without actually receiving the goods. The Principal Commissioner dropped the demand, but the Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the goods were not transported from Delhi to the respondent's factory or their job workers' premises as claimed. 2. Evidence Provided by the Revenue: The Revenue's case was primarily based on investigations extended to Road Transport Authorities (RTOs) and Check Posts in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Gujarat. The RTO reports indicated that some vehicle numbers mentioned in the seized LRs were government vehicles, auto-rickshaws, and other vehicles incapable of transporting goods. Additionally, statements from M/s Singal Road Carriers' employees admitted that the goods were not transported, and LRs were prepared falsely. However, these statements were retracted later. 3. Evidence Provided by the Respondent: The respondent provided various documents to prove the receipt and use of duty-paid goods, including: - Central Excise Invoices - Entries in Cenvat Credit Registers (RG23A Part-I & Part-II) - Annexure-II and Annexure-IV Job Work Registers - Daily Stock Register - Monthly ER-1 returns - Payment receipts through official bank channels - Transport documents, including lorry receipts and toll receipts The respondent argued that these documents demonstrated the receipt and use of copper inputs in manufacturing their final products. They also highlighted that no discrepancies were found during the panchnama at their factory or job workers' premises. 4. Reliance on Third-Party Statements and Documents: The Tribunal noted that the entire case of the Revenue was based on third-party statements and records, which were not corroborated by any substantial evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that mere third-party evidence cannot suffice to prove the department's case. The Tribunal also pointed out that there was no investigation or evidence regarding the alleged disposal of disputed inputs or the procurement of substituted scrap. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the respondent had correctly taken the Cenvat Credit, as the Revenue failed to provide substantial evidence to prove their allegations. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating that the denial of Cenvat Credit based on the vehicle numbers not being genuine could not be justified. The Tribunal also noted that the facts of the present case were similar to previous judgments where similar allegations were dismissed. Pronouncement: The impugned order was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The judgment was pronounced in the open court on 11.02.2022.
|
