Fake invoices without actual goods movement cannot support Cenvat credit, and penalty applies for facilitating ineligible credit.

Invoices issued without actual supply or physical movement of goods do not support valid Cenvat credit, and subsequent invoices built on such paper transactions also fail for want of legal efficacy. A registered dealer must issue invoices only for actual supplies, and issuing invoices to facilitate wrongful credit attracts penalty under the central excise and Cenvat framework. The insertion of Rule 26(2) was treated as clarificatory, so penalty remained sustainable even for the period before that amendment where the dealer was involved in invoices intended to evade duty and enable ineligible credit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cenvat credit could be passed on or taken on the basis of invoices issued without actual supply of goods. (ii) Whether penalty was sustainable against a dealer issuing such invoices, including for the period prior to the insertion of Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether cenvat credit could be passed on or taken on the basis of invoices issued without actual supply of goods.

Analysis: The invoices originated from a party found to be only a paper manufacturer, and the transactions between the parties were found to be paper transactions without physical movement of goods. Invoices issued on such a foundation were not valid documents for availment of credit, and subsequent invoices based on them also lacked legal efficacy. The fraudulent nature of the documents and the presence of mens rea vitiated the entire credit chain.

Conclusion: No cenvat credit could be validly passed on or taken on the basis of such invoices.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty was sustainable against a dealer issuing such invoices, including for the period prior to the insertion of Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis: A registered dealer is bound to maintain stock and issue invoices only for actual supplies. Issuing invoices without goods facilitated wrongful credit and attracted penal consequences under the applicable central excise and cenvat provisions. The insertion of Rule 26(2) by Notification No. 8/07-C.E. (N.T.) dated 01.03.2007 was treated as clarificatory, and even prior to that amendment penalty was held sustainable where the dealer was concerned with dealing in goods/invoices intended to evade duty and enable ineligible credit.

Conclusion: Penalty was rightly imposed and the objection based on the pre-amendment period was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, the penalties were upheld, and the adjudication order as affirmed in appeal remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Invoices issued without actual movement or supply of goods are not valid for cenvat credit, and a dealer who issues such invoices to facilitate ineligible credit is liable to penalty even for the period before Rule 26(2) was inserted.

---