2014 (7) TMI 354 - AT - Central Excise

Stay application - Waiver of pre deposit - Availment of inadmissible/fraudulent cenvat credit - Bogus invoices - Held that - dealers have indulged in the issuance of bogus invoices showing transport of goods in the vehicles which were not capable of doing so. The statement of owner/driver of the vehicle numbers HR 55 0076 and HR 55 H 7767 reinforced the claim of revenue that discrepancies were found in the records maintained by drivers of the respective vehicles and the appellants - Elaborate investigations have clearly manifested manipulation and fraudulent activities in support of non-transport of Cenvatable material. It has been brought out that capacity of HR-55-0076 was 4 MT but they have shown transportation by that vehicle were of 10MT, 18MT, 20MT same is the case with HR 55 H 7767. Further there is no substance in the contention of dealers that they cannot be held responsible for illegal activities of their employees. They could not escape consequences. Similarly employee can also not escape responsibility on the plea that they are mere employee as illegality in paper transactions could not be completed without their active involvement. This is not a case for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty - stay granted partly.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of stay in appeal, imposition of penalties for fraudulent activities, responsibility of dealers and employees in illegal transactions, manipulation of records, waiver of pre-deposit of penalty.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed for staying the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding Orders-in-Original confirming duty against certain entities and imposing penalties. The case involved passing on fraudulent cenvat credit through issuing invoices without actual goods transfer.

2. Detailed investigations were conducted by the Revenue, including recording statements and confronting individuals with evidence. The investigations revealed the involvement of various parties in the fraudulent scheme, leading to penalties being imposed.

3. The appellants argued against the allegations, claiming lack of proof for non-transportation and disassociating themselves from employee actions. The Revenue stood by its findings based on departmental authorities' conclusions.

4. The lower authorities found that dealers issued bogus invoices for non-existent goods transport, supported by discrepancies in vehicle records. The modus operandi of the fraudulent transactions was elaborated upon, showcasing the manipulation of records.

5. The investigations exposed manipulation and fraudulent activities, demonstrating the non-transport of cenvatable material. The capacity discrepancies in vehicle transportation further solidified the case against the appellants.

6. The judgment concluded that the Balance of Convenience favored the Revenue due to the evident illegal activities. The appellants at specific serial numbers were directed to deposit penalties, while partial deposits were ordered for others based on the circumstances.

7. Appellants were instructed to make the pre-deposit of penalties within a specified period, with the waiver of the balance amount pending the final disposal of the appeals by the Tribunal. The stay applications were disposed of accordingly.