CENVAT credit on bazaar scrap denied where duty-paid supply was not proved; confiscation and dealer penalties were also set aside.

CENVAT credit was held inadmissible where the Revenue proved that the goods covered by duty-paying documents were in fact bazaar scrap and not duty-paid industrial or ship-breaking scrap. The burden then shifted to the credit recipient to establish eligibility, and failure to take reasonable steps to verify the nature and source of the goods justified demand of credit with interest and penalty on the main appellant. Confiscation and redemption fine were not sustainable because the seized goods were found to be non-excisable bazaar scrap. Penalties on dealers, brokers and their directors were also set aside as, for the relevant period, there was no specific statutory basis to penalise the alleged bogus CENVAT documentation in the manner invoked.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether CENVAT credit on scrap was admissible and whether the demand, interest and penalty on the main appellant were sustainable; (ii) whether confiscation of the seized scrap and redemption fine were sustainable; (iii) whether penalties imposed on the dealers, brokers and their directors were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether CENVAT credit on scrap was admissible and whether the demand, interest and penalty on the main appellant were sustainable.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the scrap received by the main appellant was bazaar scrap and not duty-paid industrial scrap. The officers found large quantities of bazaar scrap in the factory, the appellant's own officials admitted its nature, debit notes were issued for inferior quality, and the brokers and transport-related statements corroborated that the supplies were sourced from the market and not from duty-paying manufacturers. In respect of the alleged ship-breaking scrap, the record showed that the supposed ship-breakers were non-existent and no consignment passed through the stated check post. Once the Revenue established that the documents did not reflect duty-paid goods, the onus shifted to the assessee to prove eligibility to credit, which was not discharged. The requirement of taking reasonable steps was also not satisfied.

Conclusion: The CENVAT credit demand, interest and penalty on the main appellant were upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation of the seized scrap and redemption fine were sustainable.

Analysis: The seized goods were found to be bazaar scrap and, therefore, not excisable goods. Confiscation presupposes goods liable to confiscation under the excise law, and where the goods are not excisable, confiscation and redemption fine cannot be sustained.

Conclusion: The confiscation and redemption fine were set aside.

Issue (iii): Whether penalties imposed on the dealers, brokers and their directors were sustainable.

Analysis: The penalties had been imposed for supplying bazaar scrap under CENVAT documents and for alleged connivance. However, for the relevant period there was no specific statutory provision enabling penalty for issuance of fake or bogus CENVAT documents in the manner alleged. Rule 26 could not be invoked because the goods supplied were not liable to confiscation as excisable goods.

Conclusion: The penalties on the dealers, brokers and their directors were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of deletion of confiscation and ancillary penalties on the dealers and brokers, while the demand of inadmissible credit with interest and penalty on the main appellant was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Revenue establishes that inputs covered by duty-paying documents were in fact non-duty-paid goods, the burden shifts to the credit recipient to prove eligibility, and failure to take reasonable steps disentitles the recipient to CENVAT credit.

---