2018 (1) TMI 416 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit taken without receipt of goods - Held that - the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the demand in respect of many invoices where the credit was taken without receipt of goods. This establishes that the respondents were engaged in malpractices - Revenue has been able to establish the evidence of non-existence of transport lines, RTO, banking transactions and missing weighment slips that there was a reason to doubt receipt of goods - the above evidence is sufficient to discharge the burdens of Revenue, especially in the circumstances then the respondent has been caught doing the mischief on some consignments - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order setting aside demand of reversal of Cenvat Credit.
2. Lack of appearance by respondent leading to final disposal based on cross objection.
3. Dispute regarding credit taken without receipt of goods, Settlement Commission involvement, and subsequent adjudication.
4. Challenge by respondent on appeal grounds and non-supply of documents.
5. Authorization for appeal and objection on non-supply of documents in cross objection.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Commissioner (Appeals) order setting aside the demand for the reversal of Cenvat Credit. The matter proceeded for final disposal based on the cross objection filed by the respondent due to their absence in multiple instances.

2. The case involved allegations of the respondent taking credit without actual receipt of goods. The Settlement Commission had previously settled the matter, but subsequent legal proceedings led to the demand being confirmed again, along with penalties and interest imposed. The Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the respondent's appeal, leading to the Revenue appealing to the Tribunal.

3. The Revenue argued that the demand was wrongly set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning certain invoices where goods were claimed to have been transported without sufficient evidence. The onus of proving receipt of goods was on the respondent, and discrepancies in transport lines, banking transactions, and weighment slips raised doubts about the actual receipt of goods.

4. The respondent challenged the appeal grounds and raised issues of non-supply of documents. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand for invoices where goods were received without proper evidence, indicating malpractices by the respondent. The Revenue presented evidence of non-existent transport lines and other discrepancies to support their case.

5. The cross objection by the respondent regarding the authorization for appeal and non-supply of documents was dismissed. The Tribunal found the authorization valid and rejected the objection on non-supply of documents as it was not raised before the original adjudicating authority or the first appellate authority. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was allowed, setting aside the impugned order and restoring the order-in-original.