2019 (7) TMI 897 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - the entire case of the Department is made on the basis that the appellant have obtained the invoices for supply of inputs without actual receipt thereof - reliance placed on confessional statement - HELD THAT - The appellant has obtained the various inputs on which the Cenvat Credit were availed, from the registered dealers, on payment through normal banking channels and the material was transported in their own trucks. The Department has not been able to prove that the inputs required for manufacturing of finished excisable goods were procured from different alternate source. The Department has also accepted the Central Excise Duty on the manufactured excisable goods by the appellant. The reasonable precaution was taken by the appellant in procuring the goods from the registered dealers who were registered with the Department. The penalty imposed on Shri Jugal Kishor, Director of the Appellant Company is also set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Upholding of demand against availment of Cenvat Credit by the appellant.
2. Allegations of obtaining invoices without actual receipt of inputs.
3. Denial of cross-examination of witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority.
4. Time-barred demand for the period 2011-12 and 2012-13.
5. Department's contention of obtaining Cenvatable invoices without actual receipt of inputs.

Analysis:

1. The appeals were filed against the Order-in-Appeal upholding the demand against the appellant for availment of Cenvat Credit. The investigation was conducted based on invoices issued by registered dealers, leading to confirmation of demand, recovery, interest, and penalty by the Adjudicating Authority, subsequently upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The appellant, a manufacturer of alloys and steel ingots, was investigated for Cenvat Credit availment based on invoices from various companies. The appellant submitted documents and payment particulars, asserting proper purchase and utilization of inputs for manufacturing finished goods.

3. The appellant contended that the case against them relied on statements of witnesses without tangible evidence, emphasizing the lack of actual receipt of inputs. The denial of cross-examination of witnesses was challenged, citing legal provisions and precedents.

4. The appellant argued that the demand for the period 2011-12 and 2012-13 was time-barred, supported by detailed records, RG-23A Register entries, regular returns filing, and past audits by Central Excise officers.

5. The Department alleged that the appellant obtained Cenvatable invoices without actual receipt of inputs, a claim refuted by the appellant citing proper purchase procedures, banking transactions, and absence of evidence proving alternate sources for raw materials.

6. The Tribunal referred to previous cases where similar issues were decided in favor of appellants, emphasizing the importance of genuine transactions, proper credit availment, and lack of evidence supporting Department's allegations.

7. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals and overturning the penalty imposed on the Director of the Appellant Company, highlighting the appellant's compliance with procurement procedures and lack of substantiated claims against them.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, legal considerations, and the final decision rendered by the Appellate Tribunal.