2013 (11) TMI 1341 - AT - Central Excise

Goods mentioned in RG-23D Register are Bogus receipt entries - No goods received supply of materials is out of stock Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - Prima facie, out of eight invoices, in the five invoices, the RG 23D entries mentioned which according to the statement of Shri Rakesh Bansal are just bogus entries are without actual receipt of any material - the dispute here is of fact, which can be examined in detail only at the time of final hearing and prima facie there is evidence against the appellant - this is not the case for total waiver - The appellant is directed to deposit an amount of Rupees One as pre-deposit upon such submission rest of the duty to be waived till the disposal Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues involved: Alleged wrongful Cenvat credit claim based on invoices without material receipt, imposition of penalties on the company and its director, appeal against the order confirming Cenvat credit demand, interest, and penalties.

Analysis:
1. Alleged wrongful Cenvat credit claim: The appellant company was accused of taking Cenvat credit without actually receiving any material based on invoices from a registered dealer. The Department relied on statements by the Director of the dealer stating that certain entries in the RG-23D register were bogus transactions without material receipt. The appellant argued that they had received the material and made payments by cheque, supported by VAT D-3 forms. The Tribunal found prima facie evidence against the appellant, directing a partial deposit of Rs. 1,00,000 for further examination during the final hearing.

2. Imposition of penalties: The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the Cenvat credit demand, interest, and penalties on the company and its director. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the filing of appeals against the penalties. The appellant contended that the statements relied upon lacked credibility, emphasizing the receipt of material and payment made. The Tribunal considered the evidence presented by both sides, noting the lack of retraction of the statements by the dealer's Director. While the penalty requirement for the director was waived, the company was directed to make a partial deposit pending further proceedings.

3. Appeal against the order: The appeals were filed challenging the order confirming the Cenvat credit demand, interest, and penalties imposed on the company and its director. The Tribunal heard arguments from both parties regarding the stay application and the credibility of the statements provided as evidence. The appellant highlighted the documentation supporting the transactions, while the Department emphasized the unretracted statements and lack of proof of material transportation. The Tribunal decided on the partial deposit requirement for the company and the waiver of penalties for the director, allowing the stay application for the director.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found prima facie evidence against the appellant regarding the wrongful Cenvat credit claim, leading to a partial deposit requirement for further examination. The penalties imposed on the company and its director were subject to review, with the director's penalty waived pending proceedings. The decision highlighted the need for detailed examination during the final hearing to determine the validity of the claims and evidence presented by both parties.