2017 (5) TMI 508 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - fake invoices - denial on the ground that the second stage dealer has not supplied the goods and issued only invoices - Held that - the authorized signatory Sh. Parmod Kumar himself has admitted that they have received irregularly invoices to avail inadmissible cenvat credit and voluntarily reversed the cenvat credit, these facts are on record and the said statement has not been retracted. In that circumstances, the authorities below has rightly denied the cenvat credit to the appellant - appeal dismissed - decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of cenvat credit and duty demand based on invoices only.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contested the denial of cenvat credit and duty demand due to alleged non-supply of goods by the second stage dealer. The appellant's factory was visited, and the Authorized Signatory admitted to procuring invoices for inadmissible cenvat credit, although unsure about receiving the goods. The appellant reversed the credit upon realizing the irregularity. A show cause notice was issued leading to the denial of cenvat credit, interest imposition, and a penalty equivalent to the duty under Section 11AC of the Act.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that since the goods were received and used in manufacturing final goods, cenvat credit should not be denied. Reference was made to previous Tribunal decisions where similar charges were dropped. The counsel emphasized that without an investigation at the consignor's place, credit denial was unjustified.

3. Conversely, the Authorized Representative for the respondent highlighted the admissions by the appellant's representatives regarding the receipt of invoices for inadmissible credit, leading to the reversal of cenvat credit. It was argued that the impugned order should be upheld based on these admissions.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and statements of both sides. It noted that while the second stage dealer issued irregular invoices for inadmissible credit, the appellant admitted to receiving such invoices without goods and voluntarily reversed the credit. The Tribunal differentiated this case from previous decisions where goods were physically received against invoices.

5. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's reliance on past cases was irrelevant as the facts differed. It emphasized that the appellant's admission of receiving irregular invoices for inadmissible credit, without goods, justified the denial of cenvat credit. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appellant's appeal.