2018 (7) TMI 88 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - the stock taking of the raw materials revealed that C.R Sheets/Coils to the extent of 162.63 MT, on which the appellants had availed the credit was not available in their stock - The entire case of the Revenue is based on the alleged shortages of raw material detected at the time of visit of the officers - Held that - Admittedly the appellants have maintained their records and availed the credit on raw materials - Apart from the fact that Revenue has not referred to any of the buyers of the said goods, they have also not produced any evidence to reflect upon any alternate mode of procurement of raw materials by the appellants. As such merely on the basis of the shortages detected at the time of stock taking, which are also being assailed by the appellant and are doubtful, there is no justifiable reason to deny the credit to the appellant and to confirm the demand against them or to impose penalty upon them. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Alleged shortage of raw materials, denial of Cenvat Credit, imposition of penalty

1. Alleged shortage of raw materials:
The case involved an appellant engaged in manufacturing fabricated steel items, where Central Excise Officers found a discrepancy in the stock of C.R Sheets/Coils during a visit. The Revenue alleged that the appellant had sold the raw materials without proper documentation, leading to a demand of duty recovery and penalty imposition.

Analysis:
The appellant argued that the Revenue's stock taking lacked physical verification and inventories, making it unreliable. They highlighted using various cenvatable raw materials besides Coils/Sheets and emphasized sending heavy items directly to a job worker for processing. The appellant contended that the Revenue's case relied on presumptions and lacked concrete evidence of sale transactions or alternate procurement methods.

2. Denial of Cenvat Credit:
The Original Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalties on both the manufacturing unit and the Director based on the alleged shortage of raw materials and unauthorized sale. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, leading to the present appeal challenging the denial of Cenvat Credit.

Analysis:
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's case primarily revolved around the absence of Coils/Sheets in the factory, impacting the appellant's availed Cenvat Credit. The appellant's defense highlighted procedural shortcomings in the Revenue's investigation, emphasizing the necessity of raw materials for manufacturing final goods. The Tribunal found the shortage allegations questionable and lacking substantial evidence, leading to the reversal of the impugned orders.

3. Imposition of penalty:
In addition to confirming the duty demand, penalties were imposed on the manufacturing unit and the Director. The appellant contested the penalties, arguing against the basis of shortage allegations and unauthorized sale, seeking relief from the penalties imposed.

Analysis:
The Tribunal considered the lack of concrete evidence supporting the Revenue's allegations, especially regarding the sale of raw materials and its impact on manufacturing final goods. Given the uncertainties surrounding the stock taking process and the absence of buyer information or procurement details, the Tribunal deemed the penalties unjustified and set aside the impugned orders, providing consequential relief to the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal overturned the decisions based on the lack of substantial evidence supporting the alleged shortages and unauthorized sale of raw materials, ultimately granting relief to the appellant by allowing the appeals and setting aside the penalties and duty demands.