2018 (1) TMI 202 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - duty paying invoices - It was alleged that the factory records of the appellant did not show the entry of the transport vehicles mentioned on the respective invoices - Held that - In the instant case, the issues not merely whether JPPL had paid the duty on these invoices. The issue is whether the goods received by the appellant in the vehicle numbers recorded in the GRN were the same goods on which JPPL had paid the duty. There is no evidence of that. In fact the evidence suggests that the goods received by the appellant and recorded in the GRN was not the same as those cleared by the JPPL, if any, on payment of duty. Extended period of limitation - Held that - the difference of the vehicle number appearing in GRN of the appellants being different from invoices in all five cases is relevant. The appellants failed to match the number of truck with the number mentioned in the invoice. Thus, it is apparent that the appellants were deliberately involved in the operation and were totally negligent - extended period rightly invoked. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of Cenvat Credit on invoices received from a supplier, mismatch in vehicle numbers on invoices and goods received, Settlement Commission's findings, relevance of Goods Receipt Note (GRN), invocation of extended period for penalties.

Analysis:
The appellant, M/s. Exide Industries Ltd., appealed against the denial of Cenvat Credit on invoices from M/s. Jammu Pigments Pvt. Ltd. Investigations revealed discrepancies in the supply of goods by JPPL, leading to a demand for reversal of credit against the appellant. Lower authorities confirmed the demand, citing mismatched vehicle numbers between invoices and actual transport vehicles used by the appellant.

The Settlement Commission's findings in a related case acknowledged discrepancies but only upheld the demand for specific invoices, not including those in the present appeal. The appellant argued that evidence such as GRNs and payment for purchases substantiated the receipt of goods, challenging the allegations based solely on vehicle number disparities.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant had credit for only five consignments, all with mismatched vehicle numbers. Despite the appellant's claim of possible vehicle breakdowns, the Tribunal found it implausible that all five vehicles would have broken down, emphasizing the failure to match invoice numbers with actual goods received. The Settlement Commission's resolution of certain issues did not absolve the appellant, as the core issue was verifying the goods received against those cleared by JPPL.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, citing the appellant's negligence and deliberate involvement in the operation, justifying the invocation of an extended period for penalties. The decision was pronounced in court on 5/12/17.