2018 (2) TMI 1106 - AT - Central Excise

Court Overturns Penalties in Credit Dispute Case

The appeals were filed against an Order-in-Appeal confirming demand and penalties imposed on M/s Yash Industries, M/s Shreeji Aluminium, its Director, and ... CENVAT CREDIT - invoices issued without receipt of goods - Held that: - only for the reason that the transporter refused the transportation of goods or that invoices were not appearing in gate register or no GRN was prepared by M/s Yash Industries, credit cannot be denied - It is not disputed that M/s Yash Industries are regularly purchasing rejected profile from M/s Shreeji and are using the same as raw material. The goods stands recorded in raw material account of the consignee and the payment towards purchase was made through banks. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Appeal against Order-in-Appeal confirming demand and penalty against M/s Yash Industries, M/s Shreeji Aluminium, Director, and transporter. Allegation of availing credit without actual receipt of goods. Disallowance of credit and imposition of penalties.Analysis:The case involved appeals against an Order-in-Appeal confirming a demand and penalty against M/s Yash Industries, M/s Shreeji Aluminium, its Director, and a transporter. The issue revolved around the allegation that M/s Yash Industries availed credit without actual receipt of goods, specifically rejected Aluminium Extruded Profiles procured from M/s Shreeji Aluminium. The officers recorded statements of involved parties, including the transporter and employees of both companies. The show cause notice alleged that M/s Yash Industries availed credit based on invoices without actual receipt of goods, leading to the confirmed demand and penalties by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, prompting the present appeals.The appellant's counsel argued that M/s Yash Industries regularly procured rejected goods from M/s Shreeji Aluminium, which were used in manufacturing Aluminium Ingots. They contended that the goods were received, as confirmed by statements of employees and owners of both companies. The counsel highlighted discrepancies in the show cause notice and lack of evidence supporting the allegation of non-receipt. They also challenged the basis for disallowing credit solely on the transporter's statement and absence of transit passes issued by the Municipal Corporation.The revenue's representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order, emphasizing that the recorded hollow profiles were considered scrap by M/s Yash Industries, with no documented receipt of profiles for manufacturing Ingots. The appellant failed to prove receipt of the profiles, as evidenced by the absence of Goods Receipt Note (GRN) or gate entry records.The Member (Judicial) carefully considered the submissions and found that M/s Yash Industries regularly procured rejected profiles from M/s Shreeji Aluminium for manufacturing purposes. The statements of involved parties confirmed the receipt of goods by the consignee, supporting the appellant's claim. Despite discrepancies in documentation and absence of certain records, the continuous purchase of rejected profiles by M/s Yash Industries, recorded in their raw material account and bank transactions, indicated a genuine business transaction. Consequently, the Member held that the appellant was eligible for the credit and deemed the penalties unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and all appeals were allowed.In conclusion, the judgment favored M/s Yash Industries, overturning the demand and penalties imposed based on the alleged non-receipt of goods, as the evidence supported the regular procurement and use of rejected profiles in their manufacturing process.