2019 (4) TMI 432 - AT - Central Excise

Recovery of erroneously refund claimed - area based exemption - genuineness of receipt of goods - N/N. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 - denial of CENVAT Credit to recipient of goods - Sole allegation in the case is that farmers from whom the inputs were purchased were non-existence - Held that - The investigation was not conducted at the end of the appellants and whole case has been based on the investigation conducted at Commissioner Central Excise, Merrut-II. Without investigation, it cannot be held that the appellant was not manufacturer during the impugned period. Moreover, the entries of vehicles at the toll barriers also certified that the movements of raw material and finished goods - during the period of investigation itself, the appellants were allowed continue their activity by procuring inputs from UP based supplier and selling goods manufacturing to their buyers. During the course of investigation, itself shows that the allegation is only on the basis of the assumption and presumption, therefore, it cannot be held that the appellants were not manufactured the goods during the impugned period. The appellant M/s Abhay Chemicals was the manufacturer during the impugned period and paid the duty on the goods manufactured by them, therefore, duty cannot be demanded on the allegation that the appellant was not a manufacturer. Consequently, the cenvat credit can t be denied to the recipient of goods located in the State of U.P i.e. M/s Siddhant Chemicals and M/s Neeru Enterprises. Therefore, no penalty is imposable on the appellants. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Demand of recovery of erroneously claimed refund by M/s Abhay Chemicals under Notification No. 56/2002-CE.
2. Denial of Cenvat credit to M/s Siddhant Chemicals and M/s Neeru Enterprises.
3. Imposition of penalties on the co-appellants.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Demand of Recovery of Erroneously Claimed Refund:
The appellants contested the demand for recovery of refunds claimed under Notification No. 56/2002-CE, arguing that no investigation was conducted to ascertain whether M/s Abhay Chemicals was indeed manufacturing the goods. The investigation by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-II, was based on the assumption that the farmers supplying raw materials were non-existent, leading to the conclusion that the goods were not manufactured. The appellants provided evidence such as toll receipts, transportation records, and certifications from various authorities to prove the receipt of raw materials and the manufacturing of goods. The Tribunal noted that the investigation did not involve the appellants directly and was based on assumptions. The Tribunal found that the evidence provided by the appellants, including the movement of trucks and certifications from various departments, supported their claim of manufacturing during the impugned period. Consequently, the Tribunal held that M/s Abhay Chemicals was indeed manufacturing and paying duty on the goods, thus setting aside the demand for recovery of the refund.

2. Denial of Cenvat Credit to M/s Siddhant Chemicals and M/s Neeru Enterprises:
The denial of Cenvat credit to the recipients of the goods, M/s Siddhant Chemicals and M/s Neeru Enterprises, was based on the allegation that M/s Abhay Chemicals did not manufacture the goods. The Tribunal observed that the investigation was not conducted at the appellants' end and was based on presumptions. The evidence provided, such as toll barrier entries and periodic checks by departmental officers, indicated that the goods were indeed manufactured and transported. The Tribunal referenced a similar case (Nanda Mint and Pine Chemicals Ltd.) where it was held that the allegation of non-manufacture was not sustainable. Given the lack of concrete evidence against the appellants and the corroborative evidence supporting their manufacturing activities, the Tribunal concluded that the denial of Cenvat credit was unjustified. Therefore, the Cenvat credit availed by M/s Siddhant Chemicals and M/s Neeru Enterprises was upheld.

3. Imposition of Penalties on the Co-Appellants:
The penalties imposed on the co-appellants were based on the same allegations of non-manufacture and erroneous refund claims. Given the Tribunal's findings that M/s Abhay Chemicals was indeed manufacturing the goods and paying the appropriate duty, the basis for imposing penalties was invalid. The Tribunal emphasized that the investigation was based on assumptions without direct evidence against the appellants. As a result, the imposition of penalties was deemed unwarranted, and the penalties on all appellants were set aside.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals with consequential relief. It held that M/s Abhay Chemicals was a manufacturer during the impugned period and had paid the duty on the goods manufactured. Consequently, the demand for recovery of the refund, denial of Cenvat credit, and imposition of penalties were all invalidated. The appellants were entitled to the benefits of Notification No. 56/2002-CE, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.