Cenvat credit denial based on non-receipt of inputs upheld where Tribunal's factual findings showed no perversity.

A Tribunal's well-supported finding that inputs were not physically received and that Cenvat credit was wrongly availed did not give rise to a substantial question of law. The court accepted the Tribunal's factual appreciation, found no perversity in the record, and held that such fact-based determinations do not justify interference in second appeal. The assessee's challenge therefore failed, and the Revenue's position sustaining the credit denial and related liabilities remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's finding sustaining denial of Cenvat credit on the ground of non-receipt of inputs and its related factual appreciation gave rise to any substantial question of law.

Analysis: The appeal challenged the Tribunal's conclusion that the assessee had not physically received 6,70,000 kgs. of polyethylene granules and had therefore wrongly availed Cenvat credit. The Court found that the Tribunal's conclusion was supported by the record and that the contention of perversity was not made out. On that basis, the Court held that the factual findings did not warrant interference in second appeal, as they did not give rise to any substantial question of law.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was not entertained and the revenue's case sustaining the demand and consequential liabilities remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A well-supported finding of fact by the Tribunal on non-receipt of inputs and wrongful availment of Cenvat credit does not raise a substantial question of law unless perversity is shown.

---