2024 (5) TMI 617 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Corroborative evidences or not - entire proceedings have been initiated against the appellant solely on the basis of the allegations against M/s. V.K. Metal Works that they did not manufacture the goods and hence they could not have supplied the goods - interest and penalty - HELD THAT - The Department has not brought in any evidence to substantiate the allegation that the appellant has received only invoices without actual receipt of the goods. The denial of credit only on the basis of the proceedings initiated against M/s. V.K. Metal Works, the supplier, is not sustainable without any corroborative evidence. Further it is found that the proceedings initiated against the supplier M/s. V. K. Metal Works has already concluded in VINOD KUMAR JAIN VERSUS C.C.E. S.T. -JAMMU KASHMIR AND OTHERS 2018 (5) TMI 1512 - CESTAT NEW DELHI issued by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal, New Delhi, wherein proceedings initiated against the supplier has been dropped, holding that they had manufactured the goods and supplied to other manufacturers against proper invoices. Accordingly, the appellant has availed CENVAT Credit properly and the denial of CENVAT Credit availed by them in the impugned order is not sustainable. Interest and penalty - HELD THAT - Since, credit has been availed properly, the demand of interest and imposition of penalty also not sustainable. Accordingly, the same is set aside. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved: Allegation of wrongful availment of CENVAT credit against the appellant based on the actions of the supplier M/s. V.K. Metal Works.

Summary:

The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of various items, had procured Copper Ingots from M/s. V.K. Metal Works and availed credit of the duty paid on such goods. Investigation by DGCEI revealed discrepancies in the actions of M/s. V.K. Metal Works, leading to proceedings against them and the appellant for recovery of wrongly availed CENVAT Credit. The appellant disputed the allegations, stating they had received the goods with proper documentation and payment methods. They argued that the proceedings were solely based on allegations against the supplier, which should not affect their credit claim. The appellant cited a similar case where the Principal Bench had ruled in favor of the suppliers, supporting their position.

The Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order. After hearing both sides and reviewing the documents, the Tribunal observed that the proceedings against the appellant were primarily based on allegations against the supplier, without concrete evidence of non-receipt of goods. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence to support the claim that the appellant only received invoices without actual goods. Referring to the concluded proceedings against the supplier by the Principal Bench, which confirmed the proper supply of goods, the Tribunal held that the appellant had availed CENVAT Credit correctly. Consequently, the denial of credit, demand for interest, and penalty were deemed unsustainable, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief as per law.