2017 (5) TMI 282 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - duty paying invoices - forged transport invoices - the vehicle number mentioned in the invoices are not transport vehicle - Held that - the investigation was conducted in the month of 2/2000 and the goods have been received by the appellant prior to that. No statement of the drivers have been recorded to ascertain the fact that the goods have been transported to the appellant or not. No investigation was conducted at the end of the SDO, Ranjitsagar Dam to ascertain the location of the truck on the said day - the appellants have discharged their burden to prove that they have received the goods in their factory and used in manufacturing of final excisable goods which have been cleared on payment of duty in the absence of any contrary evidence on records, the benefit of doubt goes in favor of the appellant - credit allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of cenvat credit and imposition of penalties based on invoices.
- Allegation that vehicles mentioned in the invoices were not transport vehicles.
- Dispute regarding goods delivery and transportation.
- Investigation findings on stock and statements of dealers and appellants.
- Remand orders and fresh adjudication by Ld. Commissioner (A).
- Burden of proof on appellants regarding payment of duty on received goods.
- Lack of evidence regarding transportation of goods to factory premises.
- Use of fake numbers by transporters and absence of driver statements.
- Validity of denying cenvat credit and imposition of penalties.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a case where cenvat credit was denied to the appellant, and penalties were imposed due to alleged discrepancies in invoices and transportation of goods. The matter had been remanded back for fresh adjudication. The investigation revealed issues with the stock and statements of dealers and appellants, leading to the denial of cenvat credit and imposition of penalties. The Ld. Commissioner (A) confirmed the demand, prompting the appeal before the Tribunal.

During the proceedings, the appellant argued that a previous Tribunal order had allowed cenvat credit in a similar case, seeking a similar outcome. However, the Ld. AR contended that the burden of proof lay with the appellants to demonstrate payment of duty on received goods, which they failed to do during the remand proceedings. The appellant countered by highlighting the lack of evidence regarding the transportation of goods to their factory premises, questioning the validity of the denial of credit and penalties.

In the final analysis, the Tribunal found that the allegations against the appellant regarding the transport vehicles and goods delivery lacked substantial evidence. The investigation did not adequately address key aspects such as statements from drivers or verification of vehicle locations. Moreover, the use of fake numbers by transporters raised doubts about the authenticity of the claims. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the appeals with consequential relief. The judgment emphasized the importance of evidence and burden of proof in such matters, ultimately leading to a favorable outcome for the appellant.