Cenvat credit denied for non-receipt of invoiced inputs; penalties upheld for knowing participation, but financer escapes penalty.

Cenvat credit was denied where the department established that the invoiced stainless steel inputs were not received and that the factory stock consisted only of assorted mixed scrap, making the invoices commercially inconsistent with the physical goods found. The extended period of limitation and penalties on the manufacturer and its senior purchase manager were sustained because the record supported fraudulent availment of credit, suppression, and knowing participation in the procurement pattern. By contrast, the penalty on the financing company was set aside because the evidence did not show knowledge of the non-supply of goods or conscious connivance in the invoice misuse.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Cenvat credit was wrongly availed on invoices describing rejected, defective, or secondary stainless steel goods when the goods found in the factory were assorted mixed scrap and the investigation showed non-receipt of the invoiced inputs; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation and penalties on the manufacturer and its senior purchase manager were justified; (iii) Whether the penalty imposed on the financing company was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether Cenvat credit was wrongly availed on invoices describing rejected, defective, or secondary stainless steel goods when the goods found in the factory were assorted mixed scrap and the investigation showed non-receipt of the invoiced inputs.

Analysis: Credit under the Cenvat scheme is available only on receipt of the inputs covered by the duty-paying document, and the manufacturer must take reasonable steps to ensure that the goods described in the invoice have in fact been received. The goods found during search did not correspond to the invoiced goods; the invoices described bars, rods, pipes, bright bars, and similar items, while the physical stock was assorted mixed scrap. The description, pricing, and technical features of the invoiced items made the appellant's explanation commercially implausible, and the surrounding evidence, including statements and testing records, supported the inference that the invoiced goods had not reached the factory.

Conclusion: The credit demand on the manufacturer was correctly upheld and is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation and penalties on the manufacturer and its senior purchase manager were justified.

Analysis: The demand was confined to invoices of one dealer and to specific discrepant descriptions for which the investigation produced direct evidence. The case was found to be one of fraudulent availment of credit, so suppression and connivance were inferred and the extended period was held applicable. On that basis, penalty on the manufacturer was sustained. The senior purchase manager, being responsible for procurement and having knowledge of the transaction pattern, was held to fall within the expression "any person" for the purposes of penalty, and his plea that mens rea was absent was rejected.

Conclusion: The extended period and the penalties on the manufacturer and the senior purchase manager were upheld and are against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalty imposed on the financing company was sustainable.

Analysis: The record did not establish that the financing company knew that the invoiced goods were not being supplied or that it actively connived in the alleged fraud. Its role was limited to financing and payment facilitation, and the evidence did not show conscious participation or knowledge of the misuse of invoices.

Conclusion: The penalty on the financing company was set aside and is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The manufacturer and its purchase manager remained liable for the credit demand and related penalties, but the financing company was relieved of penalty, resulting in a partial success for the assessees overall.

Ratio Decidendi: Cenvat credit can be denied where the department proves non-receipt of the invoiced inputs and fraudulent availment, and penalties may follow against persons who knowingly participate in the contravention, but not against a financer absent proof of knowledge or connivance.

---