2023 (1) TMI 589 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - credit availed on the strength of purchase invoices received without receipts of the inputs in their factory premises - HELD THAT - The issue involved in present case is decided in the case of SHAH FOILS LIMITED, SHRI KARTIK R SHAH, SHRI RAMESH M SHAH VERSUS C.C.E. S.T. -SURAT-I, II, RAJKOT, AHMEDABAD-III 2019 (1) TMI 1162 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD where it was held that The goods were handed over to the parties/ brokers from Vasai godwn by M/s SFPL and the Appellants had no role to play in such delivery of goods. There is no evidence at the Appellant s end that they issued any invoice without delivery of goods, the contention of the revenue that the Appellant issued invoice without actual clearance of goods is not sustainable. Reliance also placed in the case of SUNRISE STAINLESS P LTD VERSUS C.C.E. S.T. -AHMEDABAD-III 2019 (12) TMI 280 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD where it was held that In the facts of the present case there is no dispute that the documents/records recovered solely from third parties, statements of third parties whose cross examination was not allowed despite it is mandatory under section 9D of CEA, 1944, no incriminating documents recovered from the Appellant SSSPL, no excess/short stock of raw material or finished goods were found; no excess electricity consumption was proved, no evidence of any cash receipt or it s seizure, no excess raw material consumption was found - thus, the clandestine removal without any evidence as narrated above cannot be established. Thus, the entire matter needs to be re-considered in the light of above decisions - the impugned order is set aside - matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to pass a de novo order after considering the above judgments - appeals are allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availment of Cenvat Credit without receipt of inputs.
2. Confirmation of demand by adjudicating authority.
3. Appeal against the impugned order.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case revolved around the availing of Cenvat Credit by M/s Suraj Ltd. without the receipt of inputs in their factory premises. The appellant was alleged to have availed Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 11,97,40,737/- based on purchase invoices from specific suppliers without actually receiving the inputs. This was discovered through a search operation and investigation by the DGCEI, Mumbai. The tribunal noted that similar investigations and judgments were passed in related cases involving other suppliers like Shah Foils Ltd., Sunrise Stainless Pvt. Ltd., and Rajputana Stainless Ltd. The tribunal decided to re-consider the matter in light of these judgments and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals by way of remand to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after considering the previous judgments.

2. The adjudicating authority had confirmed the demand proposed in the show cause notice, leading to the appeals being filed before the Tribunal. The tribunal, after hearing both sides and considering the submissions, found it necessary to re-examine the entire matter in view of the related judgments involving other suppliers. The tribunal emphasized that the appellant should be given a fair opportunity to present their submissions and documents during the fresh adjudication process.

3. The appeal was made against the impugned order -in-original passed by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, Ahmedabad. The tribunal, comprising Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. Ramesh Nair and Hon'ble Member (Technical) Mr. Raju, allowed the appeals by way of remand to the adjudicating authority for a de novo order after considering the judgments related to similar cases. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 12.12.2022, emphasizing the need for a fair reconsideration of the matter and granting the appellant a proper opportunity for a fresh adjudication process.