2016 (10) TMI 652 - AT - Central Excise

Revenue Appeals Denied: Cenvat Credit Disallowed for Vehicle Invoices

CCE, Rohtak and CCE, Delhi-III Versus Novice Polymers, Airvision India P. Ltd. and DR Polymers

The case involved appeals by the Revenue against orders setting aside demands confirmed by an adjudication order regarding cenvat credit on inputs for ... CENVAT credit - search of premises - whether denial of CENVAT credit justified on the ground that respondents received only the cevatable invoices without receiving the goods in question? - allegation based on the statement of certain drivers/transporter - Held that: - The said statements of drivers has been controverted by the respondent by producing various vouchers which certified that the respondent have received the inputs but in specific instances like vehicle no. HR-38N-1285 and HR-38M-2282 due to the truck being refrigerator, input not transported - denial was confirmed to M/s Novice Polymer. For vehicle no. RJ14-1G-7077, that vehicle was carrying the goods from Yamuna Nagar to Jaipur through Harsh Roadlines, Yamuna Nagar who has brought GR issued by Harsh Roadlines as a evidence for movement of the vehicle. The said GR has not been controverted by the respondent with any tangible evidence - the cenvat credit denied. For vehicle no. DL 1M-1360, the vehicle is a dumper which can only be used for lifting debris, inputs not transported - credit rightly denied. In the case of Airvision India Pvt. Ltd., no contrary evidence produced - cenvat credit cannot be denied to Airvision India Pvt. Ltd.. CENVAT credit denied to M/s Novice Polymers and CENVAT credit to M/s Airvision India Pvt. Ltd. allowed. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. 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.