2015 (4) TMI 928 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Bogus invoices - Held that - Both the authorities below failed to appreciate that the Department had not provided the relied upon documents. On perusal of the Adjudication order, I find that the Adjudicating authority observed that appellants were directed to collect the copies of the relied upon documents from DGCEI office. - Adjudicating authority directed the appellants to collect the documents from DGCEI office, who has not supplied the documents to them, as contended by the respondents. But, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the documents were supplied with the show cause notice, which is totally mis-conceived, inconsistent and contradicting. The ld.Advocate Shri S.J. Vyas fairly submit that they could not file the reply to the show cause notice as the documents were not supplied to them. I agree with the submissions of the learned Advocate that if the Department fails to supply the relied upon documents, it is difficult to file the reply to the show cause notice and therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable on this ground alone. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues involved:
1. Denial of CENVAT credit based on Central Excise invoices without receiving material.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order.
3. Allegations of availing CENVAT credit without receiving goods.
4. Appeal against penalties imposed on registered dealers, transporters, and directors.
5. Discrepancy in providing relied upon documents to the appellants.
6. Maintainability of appeals filed by M/s Atlanta Electricals Pvt.Ltd. and its Director.
7. Errors in naming respondents in the appeal filed by the Revenue.

Analysis:

1. The case involved the denial of CENVAT credit to two companies for availing credit based on Central Excise invoices without receiving the material. Show Cause Notices proposed denial of credit along with interest and penalties. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand, and the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals. The appellants challenged the orders through various appeals.

2. The appellants argued that the impugned order was passed in violation of natural justice, as the case was built on statements and records without providing relied upon documents. They contended that they had evidence such as material receipts and payments by cheques, challenging the lack of document supply by the authorities.

3. The appellants highlighted discrepancies in document supply, stating they were directed to collect documents from the DGCEI office, which were not provided. The Commissioner (Appeals) claimed documents were supplied with the show cause notice, leading to a lack of reply filing by the appellants due to document unavailability.

4. The appeals also addressed penalties imposed on registered dealers, transporters, and directors. Advocates representing the appellants argued in favor of their clients, citing cases where similar appeals were allowed by the Tribunal and High Court, emphasizing the need for fair treatment.

5. The Tribunal found that the impugned orders lacked sustainability due to the Department's failure to provide relied upon documents, hindering the appellants' ability to respond adequately. The case was remanded to the Adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after supplying the necessary documents and ensuring a proper opportunity for a hearing.

6. Regarding appeals by M/s Atlanta Electricals Pvt.Ltd. and its Director, the Tribunal noted that the rejection by the Commissioner (Appeals) rendered the Revenue's appeal against them not maintainable. The incorrect naming of respondents was deemed a typographical error without merit for amendment.

7. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed all appeals filed by the appellants for remand, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The applications for extending the stay order were deemed infructuous, concluding the judgment.

← Previous Next →