Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (6) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2016 (6) TMI 271 - AT - Central Excise


Issues involved:
Appeal against duty demand, interest, and penalty due to alleged cenvat credit on paper transactions without physically receiving goods.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Allegation and Investigation:
The appellant appealed against confirmed duty demand, interest, and penalty for allegedly taking cenvat credit on paper transactions without physically receiving goods. The investigation revealed discrepancies at M/s Jai kara Steel Rolling Mills and M/s Jyoti Steels, leading to the issuance of a show cause notice to the appellant.

2. Appellant's Argument:
The appellant, a manufacturer buyer, claimed to have received goods from M/s Jyoti Steels against invoices showing M/s R.S. Enterprises/M/s Mittal Steel Industries & Rolling Mills as manufacturers. They contended that without investigating the transporter or manufacturer supplier, the demand was unsustainable. Legal precedents were cited to support their argument.

3. Revenue's Opposition:
The Revenue argued that since the first stage dealer issuing the invoice was non-existent, the appellant's claim of receiving goods was baseless. They highlighted the lack of cooperation from the first stage dealer and burdened the appellant to prove physical receipt of goods, which they failed to do.

4. Judgment and Analysis:
The Tribunal observed that the investigation did not extend to the manufacturer supplier or transporters to verify goods' delivery. The denial of cenvat credit based on the non-existence of M/s Jyoti Steels was deemed unjustified, especially since M/s Jyoti Steels had valid registration during the relevant period.

5. Rule Interpretation:
Rule 9(3) of the cenvat credit Rules 2002 mandates the assessee to ensure the accompanying documents' authenticity when claiming cenvat credit. The burden of proving non-receipt of goods rested on the Revenue, emphasizing the relevance of the transporter's statement and investigation at the manufacturer supplier's end.

6. Legal Precedents:
The Tribunal distinguished the cited case laws, emphasizing the appellant's status as a registered dealer and the presence of material evidence supporting goods receipt. The burden of proof shifted to the Revenue, which failed to demonstrate non-receipt of goods.

7. Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief. The charge that the transaction was merely on paper and goods were not received by the appellant was deemed unsustainable based on the evidence presented.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments, legal interpretations, and the Tribunal's decision, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates