2017 (1) TMI 1231 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal denied: Cenvat credit upheld despite allegations of non-existent supplier

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal seeking to disallow cenvat credit on inputs procured from a dealer alleged to be non-existent, M/s S.K. Garg ... CENVAT credit - non-existent dealers - fake invoices - Held that: - in the absence of any corroborative evidence to show that the respondents have not received the goods, it cannot be alleged against the respondents that they have received the invoices and not the goods merely on the ground that there was not storage facility specifically when the landlord made a statement that the godown was let out to the dealer - in the absence of any investigation at the end of manufacturer/supplier or the transporter, the cenvat credit cannot be denied to the respondents - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues:- Allegation of non-existence of the dealer M/s S.K. Garg & Sons who supplied goods to the respondent.- Denial of cenvat credit on inputs procured based on invoices issued by M/s S.K. Garg & Sons.- Disallowance of cenvat credit due to alleged fake invoices and non-existence of storage facility.- Lack of investigation at the end of manufacturer/supplier or transporter regarding the receipt of goods by the respondent.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against an order allowing cenvat credit on inputs procured from M/s S.K. Garg & Sons, a dealer alleged to be non-existent. The investigation revealed discrepancies, leading to the cancellation of M/s S.K. Garg & Sons' registration retrospectively.2. The Revenue contended that M/s S.K. Garg & Sons issued fake cenvatable invoices, and no physical existence of a godown was found, indicating a lack of storage capacity. Consequently, cenvat credit was sought to be disallowed.3. The respondents argued that they physically received the goods and used them in manufacturing final products. They highlighted the absence of inculpatory statements and emphasized that no investigations were conducted with the transporter or the manufacturer/supplier of the goods.4. The Tribunal noted the lack of investigations at the end of the manufacturer/supplier or transporter to ascertain the truth regarding the supply of goods. Despite M/s S.K. Garg & Sons being a registered dealer with accepted ER-1 returns, the absence of corroborative evidence led to the dismissal of allegations against the respondents.5. Referring to a previous case involving M/s Dhawan Steel Industries, the Tribunal emphasized the need for tangible evidence to support allegations of non-receipt of goods. Relying on precedents, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal due to the insufficient investigation at the supplier's end.6. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that without proper investigations at the manufacturer/supplier or transporter's end, cenvat credit could not be denied to the respondents. Citing previous decisions, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.This detailed analysis showcases the complexities of the case, focusing on the lack of concrete evidence and the importance of thorough investigations in such matters.