Cenvat credit on bogus invoices failed for lack of reasonable verification, while penalties and duty appropriation were sustained.

Manufacturers availing Cenvat credit on supplier invoices were found not to have taken reasonable steps under Rule 7 where the supplier was not shown to have actually manufactured or supplied the quantities invoiced and no convincing receipt evidence was produced. The wrongful credit based on bogus invoices justified penalties on the manufacturers and job workers, even though the job workers had not themselves taken credit. The dealer was not treated as liable to penalty on these facts, and the amount already paid was appropriated towards duty under Section 11A(2B).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the manufacturers took reasonable steps under Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 while availing Cenvat credit on the invoices issued by the supplier. (ii) Whether the penalties imposed on the manufacturers and job workers were sustainable where the credit had been wrongly availed on the strength of invoices without receipt of duty-paid inputs. (iii) Whether the dealer was liable to penalty and whether the amount already paid could be appropriated towards duty under Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue (i): Whether the manufacturers took reasonable steps under Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 while availing Cenvat credit on the invoices issued by the supplier.

Analysis: The record showed that the supplier was not actually manufacturing or supplying the quantity reflected in the invoices, and the buyers did not produce convincing evidence of actual receipt such as weighment slips, transport corroboration, or reliable verification of the supplier. The conduct and admissions on record showed that the invoices were accepted without adequate verification and that the buyers were aware that substantial quantities were only invoiced and not supplied.

Conclusion: The manufacturers did not take reasonable steps as required by Rule 7.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalties imposed on the manufacturers and job workers were sustainable where the credit had been wrongly availed on the strength of invoices without receipt of duty-paid inputs.

Analysis: Once the credit was found to be availed on the basis of fraudulent invoices and the inputs were not proved to have been received in the stated quantities, the availment of credit became wrongful. The majority held that the fraud unearthed in the supplier's operations and the admitted irregularities justified penalty under the Cenvat Credit Rules. The view that job workers had not availed credit did not, by itself, exempt them from penalty where they were part of the transaction chain involving bogus invoices and non-receipt of goods.

Conclusion: The penalties on the manufacturers and job workers were upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether the dealer was liable to penalty and whether the amount already paid could be appropriated towards duty under Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The dealer was held not to be covered by Rule 7, and the penalty provision under Section 11AC could not be applied to the dealer on the facts recorded. Separately, in the Revenue's appeal, the amount already paid before notice was treated as payment under Section 11A(2B), and the duty component was permitted to be appropriated towards the actual liability.

Conclusion: The dealer's penalty was set aside, and the pre-deposit/payment was appropriated towards duty liability.

Final Conclusion: The majority upheld reversal of wrongly availed Cenvat credit with interest and sustained penalties against the manufacturers and job workers, while granting relief to the dealer and permitting appropriation of the amount already paid towards duty.

---