2019 (1) TMI 1423 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - non-submission of documents - penalties - Held that - In the statement of facts, against the total amount of CENVAT Credit denied of ₹ 1,75,010/-, this Bench had allowed the Credit to an extent of ₹ 64,051/- and as per the appellant s own pleading, the remand Order was specifically for verification of the invoices which amounted to ₹ 68,879/-. There being no further appeal against the Order of this Bench, the same is final and hence, the scope of the de novo proceedings as also the present Order can only be ₹ 68,879/- pertaining to the 122 invoices. The assessee through its Authorized Representative has made a submission before the adjudicating authority in the de novo proceedings that they were not able to furnish/submit the 122 invoices as directed by the Tribunal based on which the adjudicating authority has confirmed the recovery of input service tax Credit to the above extent - there are no valid reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the first appellate authority who has concurred with the findings of the adjudicating authority in the de novo adjudication. Penalties - Held that - The list of invoices included the service tax Credit availed against payments made to various service providers which came to be denied because of the reason that the appellant could not produce the original documents during the de novo proceedings, which, as pleaded by the Ld. Consultant, were misplaced/could not be traced, for which reason no motive as to suppression of facts, fraud, etc. could be attributed - penalty set aside. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge of denial of CENVAT Credit
Verification of 122 Invoices
Penalties for non-submission of invoices

Analysis:
1. Challenge of denial of CENVAT Credit:
The appellant contested the denial of CENVAT Credit amounting to ?68,879. Previously, in the first round of litigation, the Tribunal allowed credit to the extent of ?64,051 but remanded the matter for verification of the remaining ?68,879 related to 122 invoices. The appellant argued that since the invoices were already submitted, they should be allowed. On the other hand, the Revenue supported the lower authorities' findings, claiming that the appellant only provided a list of invoices, not the actual invoices. The Tribunal noted that the previous order allowed credit only up to ?64,051, and the scope of the current proceedings was limited to the remaining ?68,879 pertaining to the 122 invoices. As there was no further appeal against the previous order, the Tribunal upheld the denial of credit beyond the approved amount.

2. Verification of 122 Invoices:
The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant failed to furnish the 122 invoices as directed, leading to the confirmation of the recovery of input service tax credit by the adjudicating authority. The authorized representative admitted the inability to submit the invoices, resulting in the affirmation of the recovery. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' decision, as the findings were based on the appellant's failure to comply with the Tribunal's directive. Therefore, the denial of credit related to the 122 invoices was upheld.

3. Penalties for non-submission of invoices:
Regarding penalties, the Tribunal acknowledged that the appellant's list of invoices included service tax credit availed from various providers, which was denied due to the inability to produce original documents during the proceedings. The appellant claimed the documents were misplaced or untraceable, without any evidence of fraud or suppression of facts. Considering this, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed in the impugned order. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, with the demand for penalties being overturned while the denial of credit for the 122 invoices was upheld.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the challenges concerning the denial of CENVAT Credit, the verification of 122 invoices, and the penalties for non-submission of invoices, providing a detailed analysis of each issue based on the arguments presented by the parties involved.