2006 (3) TMI 15 - AT - Central Excise

Central Excise Cenvat/Modvat credit Credit availed by the Respondent cannot be said to be recovered unless there is a concrete evidence about non-movement inputs not available

Summary

Issues: Denial of Modvat credit on the ground of fraudulent availing

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, KOLKATA, the appeal was directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 31-3-2004, where the Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the appeal of the Respondents. Despite the absence of the Respondent, the appeal was taken up for disposal due to the matter dating back to 2004. The issue at hand was the denial of Modvat credit to the Respondents for the period 1996-97, based on the contention that the credit was taken on invoices from different registered dealers without the supply of input materials. The Adjudicating Authority had confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty, but the Appellate Authority overturned this decision on the grounds that the Department failed to prove fraudulent availing of the credit.

The Tribunal analyzed the relevant provisions under Rule 57 GG(12)(b), emphasizing the requirement for registered dealers to produce original invoices to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise while preparing invoices for purchasers. The rule specified the details to be endorsed on the invoice, including the quantity received, issued, total duty available as input stage credit, and more. The Tribunal noted that the Superintendent was responsible for monitoring the quantity of inputs purchased and sold by the dealer. In this case, the Respondents possessed invoices from registered dealers, issued after complying with the necessary procedures, indicating that the credit availed could not be deemed as recovered without concrete evidence of non-movement of inputs to the Respondents.

Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) order did not warrant interference, leading to the dismissal of the Department's appeal. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court, settling the dispute regarding the denial of Modvat credit on the grounds of fraudulent availing in favor of the Respondents.