2014 (6) TMI 488 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - Penalty u/s 11AC - Held that - demand to be barred by limitation. The credit was availed by duly reflecting the same in the Central Excise records, in the month of June 2004, whereas the show cause notice stand issued on 15.05.2009. The assessee who availed credit on the basis of proper invoice issued by registered dealer, & cannot go beyond the registered dealer to find out as to whether the credit availed by them is proper or not. As per law, he is required to recognize his immediate supplier of the goods. In such a scenario, no suppression or mis-statement can be attributed to the appellants. Accordingly, I hold the demand to be barred by limitation - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Availment of Cenvat credit based on invoices from a registered dealer.
- Allegations of fraudulent credit availed by the manufacturing unit.
- Denial of credit and imposition of penalty on the appellant.
- Adjudication based on evidence against the manufacturing unit.
- Applicability of legal precedents regarding denial of Cenvat credit.
- Bar of limitation in demanding credit availed by the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the appellant's availing of Cenvat credit based on invoices from a registered dealer, M/s. SLE Enterprises, for copper ingots. The dealer, in turn, obtained credit from M/s. Annapurna Impex, a manufacturing unit under scrutiny for fraudulent credit availed amounting to Rs. 28.2 crores. The appellant faced proceedings for denial of credit and penalty imposition.

2. Investigations revealed discrepancies at M/s. Annapurna Impex, casting doubt on the legitimacy of credit availed. The Revenue suspected that the dealer passed on the fraudulent credit to various parties, including the appellant. However, the appellant maintained proper records of material receipt, payment, and duty clearance, disputing the allegations.

3. The appellate authority upheld the denial of credit and penalty, primarily focusing on the fraud at M/s. Annapurna Impex. The authority questioned the appellant's conclusive proof of material receipt and usage for final product manufacturing, emphasizing the importance of the primary requirement for availing Cenvat credit.

4. Legal precedents were cited to support the appellant's case, emphasizing that availing credit based on genuine invoices from a registered dealer should not be denied solely due to the dealer's fraudulent activities. The tribunal's decisions in similar cases highlighted the importance of proper documentation and supplier verification.

5. The judgment concluded in favor of the appellant, citing the lack of evidence indicating non-receipt of inputs and the bar of limitation in demanding credit availed in June 2004. The appellant's adherence to legal requirements regarding immediate suppliers and the reliance on proper invoices were crucial in overturning the denial of credit and penalty imposition.

In summary, the judgment addressed the complexities surrounding Cenvat credit availed based on invoices from a registered dealer amidst allegations of fraudulent credit by a manufacturing unit. Legal precedents and proper documentation played a significant role in determining the appellant's entitlement to credit, ultimately leading to the decision in favor of the appellant due to lack of evidence and the bar of limitation.