2018 (11) TMI 1510 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - fake invoices - credit denied on the ground that they have not received the material against the invoices issued by Shiva Metal Traders or M/S V.K enterprise, the second/first stage dealer and penalty has been imposed on the all the appellants - Held that - The fact which is not in dispute is that no investigation was conducted at the end of manufacturer/buyers to ascertain whether they have received the inputs in question or not - Merely, on the basis of the statement of third party, it has been alleged that the appellants have not received the goods. Moreover, no investigation was conducted with the transporter to ascertain the fact that whether this manufacturer/buyers have received goods in their factory or not? In the absence of these evidence, the Cenvat credit cannot be denied to the manufacturer/buyers, namely, M/s Gupta Metal Sheets Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Agrawal Metal works Pvt. Ltd. - credit allowed. Penalty - Held that - These dealers have failed to establish that they have received the goods against the Cenvatable invoices issued by M/s Annpurna Impex Pvt. Ltd. In that circumstances, penalty on first stage/second stage dealer is rightly imposed by the adjudicating authority or the authorities below - penalty imposed on first stage dealer and second stage dealer, namely, M/s Shiva Metal Traders and M/s V.K. Enterprises are confirmed. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Denial of Cenvat credit to manufacturer/buyers
- Imposition of penalty on all parties involved

Analysis:

Denial of Cenvat credit to manufacturer/buyers:
The case revolved around the denial of Cenvat credit to the manufacturer/buyers, namely M/s Gupta Metal Sheets Pvt. Ltd. and Aggarwal Metal works Pvt. Ltd. The investigation revealed discrepancies in the supply chain, where the manufacturer/supplier did not clear any goods but issued invoices to first and second stage dealers who, in turn, issued invoices to the manufacturer/buyers for availing inadmissible Cenvat credit without actual supply of goods. Despite no investigation at the end of the manufacturer/buyers, a show cause notice was issued to deny Cenvat credit based on invoices from the dealers. The manufacturer/buyers argued that they had received the goods, made payments, and used the inputs in manufacturing final products. They contended that proper care was taken while purchasing inputs and full particulars were mentioned in the invoices, justifying their claim for Cenvat credit. The Tribunal found that no investigation was conducted at the manufacturer/buyers' end to ascertain receipt of inputs. Relying solely on third-party statements was deemed insufficient to deny Cenvat credit. As a result, the impugned order denying Cenvat credit to the manufacturer/buyers and imposing penalties on them was set aside, and their appeals were allowed.

Imposition of penalty on all parties involved:
Regarding the penalty imposed on first and second stage dealers, M/s V.K. Enterprises and M/s Shiva Metal Traders, they failed to prove receipt of goods from the manufacturer/supplier. The dealers' assertion that they supplied goods to the manufacturer/buyers was considered plausible, given the lack of contrary evidence. However, they could not establish receiving goods against the Cenvatable invoices issued by the manufacturer/supplier. The Tribunal confirmed the penalty on the first and second stage dealers as they were unable to provide sufficient evidence of receiving the goods. The penalty imposed on M/s Shiva Metal Traders and M/s V.K. Enterprises was upheld by the adjudicating authority. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of with these terms.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of denial of Cenvat credit to manufacturer/buyers and imposition of penalties on all parties involved, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings and the Tribunal's decision.