2013 (9) TMI 617 - AT - Central Excise

Availment of Modvat Credit - Credit was availed on the invoices of grey fabrics purportedly endorsed and supplied by M/s. Deep Textiles - M/s. Deep Textiles is found to be fake and ficticious and obtained rebate of more than one crores based on fraudulent export documents - Appellant establish genuineness of transaction starting with receipt of grey fabrics Held that - The amount of Rs. 4,61,250/- is the duty on invoices of processed fabrics corresponding to the grey fabrics The appellant has claimed that Rs. 52,777/- was paid through P.L.A. Thus the credit amount on impugned grey fabrics is Rs. 4,08,473/- - Relying upon the case of Shree Shiv Vijay Processors Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (11) TMI 280 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD , it is held that apart from using the said Modvat credit for payment of duty, the appellants have also paid an amount from the P.L.A. account. According to the appellant no prudent man will pay duty to the government without actually receiving the grey fabrics - This fact tilts the weight of the evidence in favour of the appellant Decided in favor of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Fraudulent rebate claims by fictitious organization, Wrong availment of credit, Failure to establish genuineness of transactions, Confirmation of demand, Interest imposition, Penalty imposition, Lack of direct evidence of fraud by the appellant, Comparison with previous judgments.

Analysis:

1. Fraudulent Rebate Claims: The case involves investigations revealing that a fictitious organization, M/s. Deep Textiles, fraudulently claimed rebates based on forged export documents. Detailed investigations aimed to identify the real beneficiaries of the fraudulent rebate, leading to the imposition of penalties.

2. Wrong Availment of Credit: The appellant company, Shiva Petrotex Pvt. Ltd., was found to have availed rebate fraudulently without actual exports. The investigations revealed a modus operandi involving paper transactions between the fictitious merchant exporter and the appellant, with no genuine processing of fabrics as claimed.

3. Failure to Establish Genuineness of Transactions: The burden of proving the genuineness of transactions rested on the appellant. Despite lacking direct evidence of the appellant's involvement in the fraud, the complicity was evident from the failure to provide material establishing the legitimacy of the transactions.

4. Confirmation of Demand, Interest, and Penalty Imposition: The lower authorities confirmed the demand of Rs. 4,61,250 as wrong credit, imposed interest, and penalties on the appellant and related individuals under relevant Cenvat Credit Rules and Central Excise Act provisions.

5. Lack of Direct Evidence of Fraud by the Appellant: The appellant argued that there was no direct evidence linking them to the fraud. However, the first appellate authority found complicity based on the failure to substantiate the genuineness of transactions, despite no mention of non-filing of monthly returns.

6. Comparison with Previous Judgments: The appellant cited precedents where similar issues were decided in favor of the appellants due to the lack of conclusive evidence linking them to the fraud. The appellant sought relief based on these judgments to overturn the penalties imposed.

7. Judicial Decision: The appellate tribunal, considering the lack of direct evidence implicating the appellant in the fraud and following the precedent set in similar cases, set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals with consequential relief.

This comprehensive analysis highlights the key issues, findings, and legal arguments presented in the judgment, emphasizing the burden of proof, penalty imposition, and the importance of direct evidence in cases involving fraudulent activities.