2019 (4) TMI 163 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - shortage of goods - wire rods - demand on the ground that the consignments of the goods against which the appellant has availed credit were not found entered in the record of Information Collection Centres set up by the Punjab Govt. for transportation of the vehicles - Held that - The main reason to issuance of the show cause notices to denial of the cenvat credit to the assessee is that the transport vehicles are not entered at ICCs, therefore, it was alleged that the assessee has not received the inputs. In some cases, suppliers have admitted that they have not supplied the goods. Moreover, some of the vehicles found non existence and not capable of transportation of goods are other than tankers. The credit sought to be denied on the basis of GRs issued by M/s.APPL, we find that as the transportation arranged by M/s.APPL i.e. M/s.Amrit Roadlines and the invoices bearing the same number, therefore, on this ground, the credit cannot be denied. In that circumstance, the assessee is required to be a chance to produce the invoices with supporting evidence for availment of credit. Appeal disposed off.

Issues:
Appeal against confirmation of demand, Appeal against dropping of demand, Denial of Cenvat credit, Violation of principles of natural justice, Evidence of receipt of goods, Certificate from State Tax department, Non-existence of transport vehicles at Information Collection Centres (ICCs), Cross-examination of witnesses, Reliance on statements of suppliers/transporters, Certificate from Excise and Taxation officers, Justification for dropping demand, Denial of credit based on statements, Denial of credit based on GRs issued by another entity.

Appeal against Confirmation of Demand:
The case involved an appeal by the assessee against the confirmation of demand and an appeal by the Revenue against the dropping of demand. The assessee was alleged to have availed Cenvat credit on inputs without actual receipt of the same in the factory premises. The Commissioner confirmed a demand of ?6,08,435 on account of non-receipt of furnace oil, imposing interest and penalty. The main issue was the alleged non-receipt of goods by the assessee, leading to the denial of credit. The Tribunal examined evidence, including statements of suppliers and transporters, to determine the validity of the demand.

Denial of Cenvat Credit:
The denial of Cenvat credit was based on the allegation that the transport vehicles were not entered at Information Collection Centres (ICCs), indicating non-receipt of inputs by the assessee. However, the assessee produced certificates from Excise and Taxation officers certifying receipt of goods. The Tribunal noted that the Punjab Tax Department assessed the case and confirmed the receipt of goods by the assessee. The Tribunal held that the denial of credit was not justified, especially when supported by certificates confirming receipt.

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The assessee raised concerns about a violation of principles of natural justice due to the inability to cross-examine certain witnesses. The Tribunal considered this argument but ultimately focused on the evidence presented and the validity of the certificates confirming receipt of goods. The issue of natural justice, while noted, did not impact the decision regarding the denial of credit.

Evidence of Receipt of Goods:
The Tribunal extensively analyzed the evidence regarding the receipt of goods by the assessee. Certificates from Excise and Taxation officers played a crucial role in confirming the receipt of goods, countering the allegations of non-receipt. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of supporting documentation and certificates from government departments in establishing the validity of the transactions.

Certificate from State Tax Department:
The case involved reliance on a certificate issued by the State Tax department to support the dropping of demand by the Revenue. The Tribunal considered this certificate but ultimately focused on the overall evidence regarding the receipt of goods by the assessee. The certificate, while a factor, did not solely determine the outcome of the appeal.

Non-Existence of Transport Vehicles at ICCs:
One of the key issues was the non-existence of transport vehicles at Information Collection Centres (ICCs), which raised doubts about the receipt of inputs by the assessee. However, the Tribunal found that certificates and other evidence confirming the receipt of goods outweighed the absence of vehicle entries at ICCs, leading to the decision in favor of the assessee.

Cross-Examination of Witnesses:
The issue of cross-examination of witnesses, including the inability to cross-examine certain individuals, was raised during the proceedings. While the Tribunal acknowledged this concern, the decision primarily relied on the presented evidence, certificates, and overall documentation supporting the receipt of goods by the assessee.

Justification for Dropping Demand:
The Tribunal justified the dropping of demand based on the evidence provided, including certificates from government departments and other supporting documentation confirming the receipt of goods by the assessee. The decision highlighted the importance of thorough examination of evidence and the reliance on official certificates to establish the validity of transactions.

Denial of Credit Based on Statements:
The denial of credit based on statements of suppliers and transporters was a significant aspect of the case. The Tribunal scrutinized these statements, considering retractions and the lack of cross-examination in some instances. Ultimately, the decision favored the assessee based on the overall evidence and certificates confirming the receipt of goods.

Denial of Credit Based on GRs Issued by Another Entity:
Another issue involved the denial of credit based on Goods Receipts (GRs) issued by another entity. The Tribunal examined the transportation arrangements and invoices, concluding that the denial of credit on this ground was not justified. The Tribunal emphasized the need for supporting evidence and granted the assessee a chance to produce invoices with additional proof for credit availment.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the various legal issues, evidence considerations, and decision justifications made by the Appellate Tribunal in the case.

← Previous Next →