2015 (4) TMI 522 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Bogus invoices - issuance of invoices without actual supply of goods - Held that - Entire case of the Revenue is based upon the financial calculation of profit and loss of the manufacturing unit. Infact, Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that circumstantial evidence produced on record leads to inevitable fact that M/s. ASRM was only selling cenvatable invoices without supply of the goods. Inasmuch as no retailer can survive if more than 80% of its final product were held to be defective/ rejected / scrap. As regards the present appellant, they have shown receipt and utilization of raw material in their factory and have taken the benefit of Cenvat credit based upon the cenvatable invoices issued by registered dealer. Statements of authorised representative of the appellant as also of the dealer are to the effect that inputs stand supplied to them under the cover of proper cenvatable invoices. Statement of representative of the M/s. ASRM is to the effect that during the relevant period lot of their product came out to be defective and rejected and as such, same was sold after discharging the central excise duty leviable thereon. Admittedly, the appellants need the raw material for the production of their final product and if, as per the Revenue, such material has not been received by them from M/s. ASRM, they were not in a position to manufacture the final product. Revenue has not shown any alternative source of such procurement of raw material. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit due to alleged diversion of prime quality goods by the manufacturer.
2. Allegations of using defective material as raw material.
3. Lack of evidence regarding the diversion of prime quality goods by the manufacturer.
4. Reliance on circumstantial evidence and financial calculations by the Revenue.
5. Appellant's contention against assumptions made by the Revenue.
6. Lack of evidence showing alternative source of procurement of raw material by the appellant.
7. Validity of the impugned orders and appeal for consequential relief.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the denial of Cenvat credit to the appellant based on the alleged diversion of prime quality goods by the manufacturer, M/s. ASRM. The Revenue believed that the goods purchased by the appellant were defective and rejected by M/s. ASRM, leading to the denial of credit. However, the appellant argued that they purchased the goods in good faith from a registered dealer and should not be penalized for the manufacturer's actions.

2. The Revenue conducted verifications at M/s. ASRM and found discrepancies in the reporting of defective and rejected bars/rounds. This discrepancy led to suspicions of diversion of prime quality goods by M/s. ASRM, affecting the appellant's claim for Cenvat credit. The appellant contended that the Revenue's case was based on assumptions and presumptions, emphasizing their legitimate purchase from a registered dealer.

3. Despite the Revenue's allegations, there was a lack of concrete evidence showing the diversion of prime quality goods by M/s. ASRM or any alternative source of procurement of raw material by the appellant. The judgment highlighted the absence of proof regarding the sale of prime quality goods to other buyers or the initiation of proceedings against M/s. ASRM, casting doubt on the Revenue's claims.

4. The judgment criticized the Revenue's reliance on circumstantial evidence and financial calculations to support its case. The Commissioner (Appeals) based their decision on the assumption that M/s. ASRM was only selling cenvatable invoices without actual supply of goods, a conclusion deemed insufficient to deny the appellant's Cenvat credit.

5. The appellant challenged the Revenue's reasoning, arguing that they had followed proper procedures and should not be penalized for the manufacturer's actions. The appellant's receipt and utilization of raw material, supported by valid cenvatable invoices, demonstrated their compliance with regulations, further weakening the Revenue's case.

6. The judgment ultimately found no substantial basis to uphold the impugned orders against the appellant. It highlighted the lack of evidence supporting the Revenue's claims and the appellant's adherence to proper procedures in procuring raw material. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief to the appellants and setting aside the previous orders.

← Previous Next →