9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 6 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - receipt of raw materials or inputs - non-existent dealers - purchases were actually made by the said First Stage Dealers from manufacturing units of Dhanbad or not - reliability of statements - discharge of onus as required under Rule 9(1) (5) of CCR, 2004 - HELD THAT - The Revenue is not disputing the fact that First Stage Dealers raised invoices giving all the particulars required to be given under the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, in respect of material supplied to the assessee-Appellant. It is also not being disputed that the assessee-Appellant has received inputs for manufacture and entered the same in their Central Excise records. The said inputs were further used by the assessee-Appellant in the manufacture of their final product which were cleared by them on payment of duty. This fact is sufficient to prove the physical entry of the inputs in the assessee-Appellant s premises. Further, the ledger account and RG-23A register (cenvat register) maintained by the assessee-Appellant is supported by weighment slips, also proves the receipt of the goods. The assessee-Appellant also produced the sample invoices against which they have availed the Cenvat Credit along with supporting documents, including lorry receipts and weighment slips. Also demonstrated the ledger account of the suppliers, supported with statutory register and Bank Statement. Thus, appellant have prima facie, discharged the onus on them. Therefore, the burden is cast upon the Revenue to prove that it was merely a paper transaction, and goods were not received by the assessee-Appellant, as alleged, which it failed - It is further demonstrated that all the payments made to the First Stage Dealers are through banking channels, by way of Cheques/RTGS. The Revenue has not brought on record any evidence to prove any flow back of monies. The assessee-Appellant have discharged its onus as required under Rule 9(1) (5) of CCR, 2004 and as explained by Hon ble Allahabad High Court in its decision in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS SERVICE TAX VERSUS M/S. JUHI ALLOYS LTD., ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA 2014 (1) TMI 1475 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT . Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of Cenvat Credit on raw materials. 2. Allegations of non-existent suppliers and dubious transactions. 3. Investigation and evidence provided by the Department. 4. Compliance and documentation by the appellant. 5. Legal precedents and burden of proof. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Cenvat Credit on raw materials: The core issue in this appeal is whether the appellant company was correctly disallowed Cenvat credit on the receipt of raw materials or inputs, as disputed by the Revenue. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing M.S. Ingots, availed Cenvat Credit on purchases of inputs like Sponge Iron, Steel Scrap, and Ferro Alloys based on CENVATABLE invoices. 2. Allegations of non-existent suppliers and dubious transactions: The Department alleged that the appellant purchased M.S. Scrap from several First Stage dealers who were non-existent, and the transactions appeared dubious. The show cause notice claimed that the appellant was evading Central Excise duty by availing Cenvat Credit based on invoices without actual receipt of goods. The Department's case was that the amount paid against invoices was returned in cash by the dealers. 3. Investigation and evidence provided by the Department: The Department's investigation relied on statements and Commercial Tax Returns of the dealers, suggesting no actual purchases were made. The Department argued that the dealers did not receive goods from the alleged manufacturers and only issued invoices. The Revenue's evidence included statements from individuals and records indicating non-existent transactions. 4. Compliance and documentation by the appellant: The appellant contended that all purchases were made through proper banking channels, accompanied by weighment slips, and duly recorded in statutory registers. They argued that no unexplained cash was found during the search, and the Department did not verify the bank accounts of the dealers. The appellant maintained that they received the goods, used them in manufacturing, and cleared the final products on payment of duty. 5. Legal precedents and burden of proof: The appellant cited several legal precedents, including the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court's decision in CCE vs. Juhi Alloys Ltd., asserting that once a buyer receives invoices, it is presumed that the excise duty has been or will be paid by the supplier. The appellant argued that the burden of proof lies on the Department to prove that the transactions were merely on paper and that goods were not received. The Tribunal found that the appellant had discharged their onus by maintaining proper records and making payments through banking channels. The Department failed to provide conclusive evidence to the contrary. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had fulfilled their obligations under the Cenvat Credit Rules and that the Department's allegations were based on assumptions and presumptions. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief. The judgment emphasized the importance of concrete evidence over assumptions in disallowing Cenvat Credit.
|
