2017 (5) TMI 645 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - input - registered dealer is bogus - the registration certificate of the dealer has been cancelled on 19.02.2008 with retrospective effect - Held that - It is not the case of the Department that appellant has not received the goods - no investigation has been conducted at the end of the appellant to ascertain they have received the goods or not. No investigation was conducted at the transporter of the goods or at the premises of the appellant to reveal the truth. No cross examination of the registered dealer was granted to the appellant to reveal the truth - Cenvat Credit cannot be denied to the appellant on the basis of deficient investigation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Request to decide on merits - for the appellant; Denial of Cenvat Credit on input procured from a registered dealer; Allegation of the registered dealer being non-existent; Lack of investigation at the end of manufacturer suppliers and transporters; Cross-examination of the registered dealer not granted.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against an order demanding duty, interest, and penalty due to the denial of Cenvat Credit on inputs procured from a registered dealer. The appellant obtained pig iron from a registered dealer, paid for it through account payee cheques, and used it in their manufacturing process. An investigation revealed that the registered dealer was alleged to be bogus, leading to a show cause notice to the appellant. The duty demand, interest, and penalty were confirmed, prompting the appeal. The appellant argued that they received the goods and utilized them in their final product, emphasizing that no investigation was conducted at the end of manufacturer suppliers or transporters. The appellant contended that the denial of Cenvat Credit based on the non-existence of the registered dealer was unjustified, especially since payment was made through legitimate means.

The lower authorities supported the denial of Cenvat Credit, but the appellant's counsel argued against it, highlighting the lack of investigation at crucial points and the importance of the goods received in their manufacturing process. The appellate tribunal noted that the Department sought to deny Cenvat Credit based on the non-existence of the registered dealer without confirming whether the goods were received by the appellant. No investigations were conducted at various stages to verify the receipt of goods, and the appellant was not granted the opportunity for cross-examination of the registered dealer. Consequently, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with any consequential relief.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the lack of thorough investigation by the Department regarding the receipt of goods by the appellant and the non-existence of the registered dealer. The tribunal emphasized the importance of proper verification before denying Cenvat Credit to the appellant, ultimately leading to a decision in favor of the appellant due to insufficient evidence and procedural lapses in the investigation process.