2009 (11) TMI 521 - HC - Central Excise

Cenvat credit - allowed on inputs which have not been proved to be received in the manufacturing unit for manufacture of dutiable products in contravention to the erstwhile Rule 57G(3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 - assessee had proved beyond doubt that they had received the inputs in question and the same has been used by them in the manufacture of the final product Held that - Department wants to rely on certain material which was never produced before the Assessing Officer or Revenue Authorities upto the level of the Tribunal - Department cannot be permitted to place additional evidence on record - No question of law much less a substantial question of law is involved in all the appeals. The appeals are accordingly rejected. No order as to costs.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether Cenvat credit can be allowed on inputs not proved to be received in the manufacturing unit for manufacturing dutiable products in contravention of Rule 57G(3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh involved the question of law regarding the allowance of Cenvat credit on inputs that were allegedly not proven to have been received in the manufacturing unit for the production of dutiable products, contrary to Rule 57G(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Court noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had already determined that the assessee had indeed received the inputs in question and utilized them in the manufacturing process of the final product. This factual finding was upheld by the Tribunal, with no contradictory evidence presented. The Department sought to introduce new material at the appeal stage, which had not been presented before the Assessing Officer or Revenue Authorities earlier. The Court held that additional evidence could not be accepted at this juncture.

Furthermore, both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal had conclusively established that the assessee had satisfactorily demonstrated the receipt and utilization of the inputs in the production of the final goods. This factual determination, being beyond reasonable doubt, was considered a pure finding of fact that could not be challenged in an appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As no question of law, let alone a substantial question of law, arose in the appeals, the Court rejected the appeals, emphasizing that no costs were to be awarded in the matter.