2016 (12) TMI 1113 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT credit - forged invoices - Held that - There has been clear evidence on record that the original importer of the goods namely M/s Sulabh Impex Incorporation, Delhi never imported the goods which had been purportedly received under respective invoices by the manufacturer-appellants viz. Sarda Industrial Enterprises and M/s Bright Metals (I) Pvt. Ltd. It is also on record that original importer M/s Sulabh Impex Incorporation. Delhi is holding IEC code issued by DGFT and this code was being used by certain other importers. In case of present appeals Shri Sunil Kumar Mittal, proprietor of M/s Sulabh Impex Incorporation, Delhi had admitted that they did not import subject goods; only issued Cenvatable invoices and never supplied the goods along with said invoices. These Cenvatable invoices have been instrumental in allowing wrong Cenvat credit claims in favour of manufacturer-appellants. Order-in-Original passed by Asst. Commissioner gives the fact on record, which again clearly prove that factually goods were never received by the manufacturer appellants. Further, there is no question of receipt of such goods, when the said goods were never imported by the importer viz. Sulabh Impex Incorporation, Delhi. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Claim of Cenvat credit based on invoices without actual receipt of goods.

Analysis:
The case involved four appeals filed by different appellants, including M/s Sarda Industrial Enterprises, M/s Yash Industries, and M/s Bright Metals (I) Pvt. Ltd. The appeals stemmed from two show cause notices and two orders-in-original issued to the respective appellants. The central issue revolved around the claim of Cenvat credit based on invoices where goods were not actually supplied or received by the appellants. The dealer, M/s Yash Industries, supplied invoices without the goods, while the manufacturer recipients, M/s Sarda Industrial Enterprises and Bright Metals (I) Pvt. Ltd., were the appellants in question.

The original importer of the goods, M/s Sulabh Impex Incorporation, Delhi, never imported the goods that were purportedly received under the invoices by the manufacturer-appellants. It was revealed that M/s Sulabh Impex Incorporation was using its IEC code issued by DGFT for certain other importers, and the proprietor admitted to issuing Cenvatable invoices without supplying the goods. These actions led to incorrect Cenvat credit claims in favor of the manufacturer-appellants. Despite arguments by the appellants' advocate that they submitted a complete chain of papers to support their Cenvat credit claim, the Order-in-Original passed by the Asst. Commissioner clearly demonstrated that the goods were never received by the manufacturer-appellants, as they were never imported by the original importer.

After careful consideration of the facts and submissions from both sides, the tribunal found that the appeals lacked substance. The impugned orders were upheld, and the appeals were dismissed accordingly.