Misdescribed inputs and suppression justified denial of Cenvat credit, extended limitation, and penalty relief only in part.

Cenvat credit was held inadmissible where the invoices described scrap different from the goods actually received, because credit is available only on duty-paid inputs actually received and used in manufacture. The deliberate misdescription of goods, coupled with the assessee's knowledge of the mismatch, amounted to suppression with intent to evade duty, so the extended limitation period was correctly invoked. Penalty on the assessee was upheld but reduced as excessive, while ancillary penalties on the other noticees were set aside because the conditions for those penalties were not met. The additional credit disallowed by the Commissioner was also sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Cenvat credit was admissible on scrap shown in the dealer's invoices but found, on investigation and visual inspection, to be different from the goods actually received; (ii) whether the extended period of limitation was invocable on the ground of suppression with intent to evade duty; (iii) whether the penalty on the assessee and the ancillary penalties on the other noticees were sustainable; and (iv) whether the Revenue was entitled to the additional credit disallowed by the Commissioner.

Issue (i): Whether Cenvat credit was admissible on scrap shown in the dealer's invoices but found, on investigation and visual inspection, to be different from the goods actually received.

Analysis: The material on record showed that the dealer admitted that the goods described in the invoices as stainless steel patta-patti were not the goods actually supplied, and that the invoices were deliberately worded to enable availing of credit. The assessee's own visual inspection reports described the received material as chemical equipment, flanges, sheet cut ends, broken utensils and kitchen sinks, which did not correspond to the invoiced description. Credit was available only on duty-paid inputs actually received and used in manufacture. Where the invoiced goods were never received, and the duty had been paid on a different and higher-value commodity, the credit could not be retained.

Conclusion: The Cenvat credit on the disputed clearances was inadmissible and the demand was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable on the ground of suppression with intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The assessee knew that the goods actually received were different from those described in the invoices, yet the documents were arranged in a manner that enabled the availment of credit. This amounted to suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty. The subsequent notice was therefore not barred merely because the department had earlier knowledge of the transactions.

Conclusion: The extended period was correctly invoked.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalty on the assessee and the ancillary penalties on the other noticees were sustainable.

Analysis: Since the assessee knowingly availed credit on goods not covered by the duty-paid description in the invoices, penalty on the assessee was justified, though the quantum was considered excessive. As regards the other noticees, no goods had been held liable to confiscation, and the conditions for penalty under the relevant dealer and connected-person provisions were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The assessee's penalty was reduced, and the penalties on the other noticees were set aside.

Issue (iv): Whether the Revenue was entitled to the additional credit disallowed by the Commissioner.

Analysis: The fact that the invoices had been verified by Central Excise officers did not establish physical receipt of the goods by the consignee. Since the same reasoning applied to the disputed clearances, the additional credit also stood on no better footing.

Conclusion: The Revenue's appeal was allowed and the additional disallowance was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The demand of credit was substantially upheld, the Revenue succeeded on the additional amount, the assessee obtained only partial relief on penalty, and the connected penalties on the other noticees were annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: Cenvat credit is available only on duty-paid inputs actually received and used in manufacture; where invoices are deliberately misdescribed to facilitate credit on goods not received, suppression with intent to evade duty is established and the extended period and penalty provisions are attracted.

---