Revenue Appeals Denied: Cenvat Credit Disallowed for Vehicle Invoices

The case involved appeals by the Revenue against orders setting aside demands confirmed by an adjudication order regarding cenvat credit on inputs for plastic mould manufacturers. CESTAT Chandigarh found that while some invoices were supported by evidence of goods receipt, specific instances of vehicles incapable of transporting the goods led to the denial of cenvat credit. The judgment denied cenvat credit for certain vehicle invoices, confirmed duty demands, imposed interest, and penalties on Novice Polymers. The appeal against denying cenvat credit to Airvision India Pvt. Ltd. was dismissed, with cenvat credit allowed for them.

---

---

Issues:
Revenue's appeal against demand confirmed by adjudication order - Denial of cenvat credit on the strength of invoices - Allegations of not receiving goods - Appeal by respondents before Commissioner (A) - Appeal before CESTAT Chandigarh.

Analysis:
The case involved appeals by the Revenue against orders setting aside demands confirmed by an adjudication order. The respondents, manufacturers of plastic moulds, were availing cenvat credit on inputs. A search was conducted at their premises based on intelligence, leading to allegations that they received only cenvatable invoices without receiving the goods. The adjudicating authority denied the cenvat credit, confirmed the duty demand, and imposed penalties. The respondents appealed before the Commissioner (A), who set aside the adjudication orders, prompting the Revenue to appeal before CESTAT Chandigarh.

The Revenue argued that statements of drivers indicated that goods were not transported to the respondents, justifying the denial of cenvat credit. The Revenue contended that certain drivers did not have permits for transport outside Delhi and were not present in Gurgaon on dates mentioned in invoices. On the other hand, the respondents' counsel asserted that drivers admitted transporting goods and issued payment vouchers, supporting the allowance of cenvat credit.

After hearing both parties, CESTAT Chandigarh observed that the Revenue's case hinged on the allegation that the respondents did not receive goods but only cenvatable invoices, based on statements of drivers. The respondents countered this by producing vouchers certifying receipt of inputs. However, in specific instances like refrigerated vans incapable of transporting plastic moulds, cenvat credit was denied for those vehicles. The judgment modified the order for one respondent, denying cenvat credit for specific vehicle invoices.

In another instance, the owner of a vehicle provided uncontroverted evidence of transporting goods, leading to the denial of cenvat credit for that vehicle's invoices. Similarly, for a dumper vehicle, the owner's statement was considered admissible evidence, resulting in the denial of cenvat credit. Consequently, the denial of cenvat credit on specific invoices led to duty confirmation, interest imposition, and penalties on Novice Polymers.

Regarding Airvision India Pvt. Ltd., the Revenue failed to produce contrary evidence to the Commissioner (A)'s observations, leading to the dismissal of the appeal against denying cenvat credit. Ultimately, the judgment denied cenvat credit to Novice Polymers while allowing it for Airvision India Pvt. Ltd., disposing of the appeals accordingly.

---