2018 (3) TMI 546 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - demand on the ground that respondent have not received the material and they have only received the invoices and availed fraudulent credit - entire case of the department was made out against the respondent is only on the basis of RTO report, according to which in some of the vehicles it was found that the said vehicles are not capable of transporting the goods - Held that - there is no concrete evidence by which it can be established that the goods were not received by the respondent - supplies made by M/s. Ravi Steel to the Respondent is undisputed and respondent has received the scrap from M/s. Ravi Steel Industries and payments towards said supplies was made through cheques/RTGS and same has been recorded in the ledger account of M/s. Ravi Steel Industries, Nagpur. It is established that respondent company has received the M.S. scrap, hence credit cannot be denied - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the Order of the Commissioner(Appeals) setting aside demand of Cenvat credit, interest, redemption fine, and penalty.
- Confirmation of duty demand, penalty, and redemption fine by the Adjudicating authority based on fraudulent credit availed by the respondent.
- Dispute regarding receipt of goods by the respondent from M/s. Ravi Steel Industries, Nagpur.
- Interpretation of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 concerning the availability of credit on specified duty paid on input only if input is received and used in the manufacture of excisable final product.
- Upholding of consequential penalty imposed on the director of the company.

Analysis:

1. The appeals were filed against the Order of the Commissioner(Appeals) setting aside the demand of Cenvat credit, interest, redemption fine, and penalty against the company and its Director. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand, penalty, and redemption fine citing fraudulent credit availed by the respondent based on the RTO report indicating some vehicles were not capable of transporting goods.

2. The Revenue argued that the RTO report established that the goods were not transported to the respondent's factory, and the credit availed on M.S. scrap from M/s. Ravi Steel Industries, Nagpur was without actual receipt of goods. The Revenue contended that as per Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, credit is available only if input is received and used in manufacturing, which was not the case here. Therefore, the demand and penalty imposed deserved to be maintained.

3. The Respondent's counsel countered, stating that apart from the RTO report, there was no evidence to prove non-receipt of goods. They highlighted that the Commissioner(Appeals) considered various pieces of evidence like record of receipt of input and production, indicating that goods were received and used for production. The statement of the company's employee and Director confirmed the receipt of goods, supported by payment records through RTGS.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the evidence, emphasizing that the case against the respondent was primarily based on the RTO report. However, statements from the company's authorized signatory and Director confirmed the receipt of goods from M/s. Ravi Steel Industries. Referring to an adjudication order against M/s. Ravi Steel, it was established that the respondent had received the scrap, and payments were made through legitimate channels. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the Revenue's appeals and disposing of cross-objections.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the arguments presented by both parties, leading to the Tribunal's final decision in the matter.