Tribunal dismisses appeal, upholds penalty for using bogus invoices; credits disallowed.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Cenvat credit and penalty imposition on the appellant for availing credit based on allegedly bogus invoices from M/s. Ganpati Trade Links. Despite the appellant's claim of receiving goods from a different supplier, M/s. Rajdhani Metals, the Tribunal held that the appellant's involvement in the transaction indicated liability. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the penalty and credit disallowance.

---

---

Issues:
1. Disallowance of Cenvat credit and imposition of penalty on the appellant based on allegedly bogus invoices issued by M/s. Ganpati Trade Links.
2. Accusation against the appellant for taking credit on the basis of cenvatable invoices without knowledge of the alleged bogus nature of the invoices.
3. Dispute regarding the appellant's justification for the imposition of penalty in the case of alleged receipt of goods from a different supplier, M/s. Rajdhani Metals.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a registered dealer, availed Cenvat credit amounting to Rs.34,498/- based on invoices for brass scrap from M/s. Ganpati Trade Links, which were later found to be bogus. The Assistant Commissioner disallowed the credit and imposed a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, leading to the current appeal. The Tribunal noted that the invoices were indeed bogus, as confirmed by the statements of Shri Sunil Kumar Mittal, the proprietor of M/s. Ganpati Trade Links. The appellant's argument of receiving goods from M/s. Rajdhani Metals did not absolve them of liability, as the supply would have been on their instruction. Thus, the disallowance of credit and penalty imposition were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

2. The appellant contended that they were unaware of the alleged bogus nature of the invoices issued by M/s. Ganpati Trade Links, as they had received the goods from M/s. Rajdhani Metals. However, the Tribunal found that even if the actual supply was from a different supplier, it would have been on the appellant's instruction, indicating their involvement. Therefore, lack of knowledge about the bogus nature of the invoices did not absolve the appellant of liability for taking wrongful Cenvat credit. The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the appellant based on this reasoning.

3. The appellant argued that since they received the goods from M/s. Rajdhani Metals, they should not be penalized for the alleged bogus invoices from M/s. Ganpati Trade Links. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that any supply from M/s. Rajdhani Metals would have been on the appellant's instruction, indicating their involvement in the transaction. Therefore, the Tribunal found no justification for overturning the penalty imposed on the appellant, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

---