Tribunal sets aside penalties, reduces fine, citing lack of evidence and denial of cross-examination

The tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the appellant company and its director, setting aside the penalties imposed on them. The penalty on Shri Satya Narayan Dey was reduced to Rs. 3,00,000. The tribunal highlighted the lack of corroborative evidence and the improper denial of cross-examination, concluding that the Revenue did not successfully prove the allegations against the appellant company.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Wrongful availing of Cenvat Credit by the appellant company.
2. Imposition of penalties on the appellant company and its director.
3. Imposition of penalty on the proprietor of M/s. Shyam Sons India.
4. Denial of cross-examination request by the adjudicating authority.
5. Lack of corroborative evidence against the appellant company.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Wrongful Availing of Cenvat Credit by the Appellant Company:
The appellant company was accused of availing Cenvat Credit on inputs/raw materials, specifically Pig Iron, without actually receiving the inputs in their factory. The investigation by DGCEI revealed that the consignment of Pig Iron procured by the appellant was diverted to other places by an agent, Shri Satya Narayan Dey, and not received by the appellant's factory. The appellant contended that they received the goods accompanied by Central Excise Invoices and duly recorded them in their Cenvat Account.

2. Imposition of Penalties on the Appellant Company and Its Director:
The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of wrongly availed Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 9,69,053.00 along with interest and imposed an equal amount of penalty on the appellant company. Additionally, penalties of equal amounts were imposed on the director of the appellant company and the proprietor of M/s. Shyam Sons India. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld these penalties, leading to the present appeals.

3. Imposition of Penalty on the Proprietor of M/s. Shyam Sons India:
The proprietor, Shri Satya Narayan Dey, argued that he did not issue any invoices or documents that facilitated the appellant company in availing ineligible Cenvat Credit. He claimed no knowledge of the misuse of Cenvat Credit by the appellant company. However, the tribunal found that Shri Dey's involvement in trading and his exercise book mentioned the appellant company, leading to the imposition of a penalty. The tribunal reduced the penalty on Shri Dey to Rs. 3,00,000/-.

4. Denial of Cross-Examination Request by the Adjudicating Authority:
The appellant company requested cross-examination of witnesses, which was denied by the adjudicating authority. The tribunal noted that the department did not conduct any investigation against the supplier of the goods and relied heavily on statements and documents from Shri Satya Narayan Dey without corroborative evidence.

5. Lack of Corroborative Evidence Against the Appellant Company:
The tribunal found that the case against the appellant was primarily based on the statement of Shri Satya Narayan Dey and his exercise book. There was no material evidence recovered from the appellant company to substantiate the non-receipt of inputs. The tribunal emphasized that the appellant's records showed receipt and use of the goods in the manufacture of final products, and payments were made by account payee cheques, reflecting in the bank statements. The tribunal cited the Calcutta High Court's decision in Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal, Kolkata Vs. Ritu Kumar, which held that the burden of proof was not discharged by the Revenue.

Conclusion:
The tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the appellant company and its director, setting aside the penalties imposed on them. The penalty on Shri Satya Narayan Dey was reduced to Rs. 3,00,000/-. The tribunal highlighted the lack of corroborative evidence and the improper denial of cross-examination, leading to the conclusion that the Revenue did not successfully prove the allegations against the appellant company.

Pronouncement:
The judgment was pronounced in the open court on 09-03-2018.

---