Tribunal overturns denial of tax credit & penalties, emphasizes recipient need only know immediate supplier

The denial of Cenvat credit to M/s. JCBL Ltd. and the imposition of penalties on them and M/s. Swastik Steel Corporation were overturned by the Tribunal. M/s. Swastik Steel Corporation provided evidence proving that the inputs were received by M/s. JCBL Ltd., thus justifying the credit. The Tribunal emphasized that the recipient need only know the immediate supplier, not the entire chain. As a result, the penalties were deemed unwarranted, and the impugned orders were set aside, with the appeals allowed and consequential relief granted.

---

---

Issues:
Denial of Cenvat credit to M/s. JCBL Ltd. and imposition of penalties on them and M/s. Swastik Steel Corporation.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the denial of Cenvat credit to M/s. JCBL Ltd. and the imposition of penalties, which arose from the same impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant availed credit based on cenvatable invoices from the second stage dealer, M/s. Swastik Steel Corporation, who, in turn, purchased goods from the first stage dealer, M/s. Steel Mongers (India) P. Ltd., procured from the manufacturer, Khemka Ispat Ltd. Investigations revealed discrepancies at Khemka Ispat, leading to proceedings against the appellants. However, the Tribunal's decision in a similar case highlighted the importance of the recipient knowing the supplier of the goods, which was satisfied in this case by evidence provided by M/s. Swastik Steel Corporation. The Tribunal emphasized that without evidence of inputs being procured from an alternative source, the revenue's claim that no inputs were received could not be upheld. The recipient is expected to know the immediate supplier, not the entire chain. Therefore, the confirmation of demand and penalties were set aside in the previous case, and these findings were deemed applicable to the present case.

The Tribunal found that M/s. Swastik Steel Corporation had produced sufficient evidence, including transportation evidence and sale tax barrier receipts, to prove that the inputs were indeed received by M/s. JCBL Ltd. Consequently, the benefit of credit was not to be denied to M/s. JCBL Ltd., and penalties on both appellants were unwarranted. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

---