2018 (4) TMI 890 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal upholds Cenvat credit denial, revokes penalties emphasizing compliance, record-keeping, and nuanced investigation approach.

The tribunal upheld the denial of Cenvat credit to the appellant firm due to discrepancies in raw material purchases but revoked penalties imposed on the ... CENVAT credit - factitious purchase of raw material - fake invoices - penalty - Held that: - there is no retraction. Nor there is any whisper in the reply to the SCN, that under undue influence/ coercion, he had to admit before the officers in his statement, as afore-mentioned wherein he stated the purchase were being looked after by the staff and it might be that only invoice was received and not goods - denial of credit upheld. There is no allegation by Revenue that the appellant sourced copper from any alternative source and apparently appellant have produced dutiable goods by using of copper and cleared the same on payment of duty. Penalties - Held that: - there is no case made out of any contumacious conduct or suppression of records. More so, there is absence of allegation for source of copper bars - penalties set aside. Appeal allowed in part. Issues:1. Denial of Cenvat credit and imposition of penalty on alleged factitious purchase of raw material.Analysis:The issue in these appeals revolves around the denial of Cenvat credit and imposition of penalties on the appellant/manufacturer and a partner of the manufacturing firm for an alleged factitious purchase of raw material. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing bushing metal parts, faced allegations related to a specific invoice involving copper ingots. The show cause notice highlighted discrepancies in the purchase of raw materials, indicating potential manipulation of records by the supplier. The appellant's partner admitted to a possible error in receiving goods against the invoice during the investigation. Subsequently, the Revenue proposed duty demands, disallowed Cenvat credit, and imposed penalties on the appellant firm, the partner, and the supplier.The adjudication process resulted in confirming the proposed demands and penalties, citing the partner's admission as a basis for the decision. The appellant's defense emphasized their compliance with rules, proper record-keeping, and utilization of received inputs in manufacturing final products. However, the order-in-original upheld the disallowance of Cenvat credit based on the partner's statement and the subsequent reversal of credit by the Revenue. Penalties were imposed on both the appellant firm and the partner, along with the supplier.Upon appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the findings of the original order, leading to further challenge by the appellant. The appellant's counsel argued against the reliance on the partner's statement, citing procedural concerns and asserting the appellant's fulfillment of obligations under the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Revenue, supported by a precedent involving fraudulent practices in availing Cenvat credit, defended the impugned order's findings.In the final analysis, the tribunal considered precedents and the specific circumstances of the case. While upholding the denial of Cenvat credit to the appellant firm, the tribunal noted the absence of evidence supporting contumacious conduct or suppression of records. Consequently, the penalties imposed on the appellant firm and the partner were revoked, and the appeals were partly allowed, providing consequential relief in accordance with the law.In conclusion, the judgment addresses the complex issues of Cenvat credit denial and penalty imposition arising from alleged irregularities in raw material purchases. It underscores the importance of adherence to rules and proper documentation while evaluating the evidentiary value of statements made during investigations. The tribunal's decision balances accountability with the absence of conclusive evidence, resulting in a nuanced outcome beneficial to the appellant.