Cenvat credit and clandestine removal allegations fail when supplier findings and uncorroborated computer printouts cannot sustain the demand.

Cenvat credit could not be denied where the alleged defect in the supplier's invoices depended on a charge already rejected in the supplier's own proceedings; once the supplier's area-based exemption and duty position were upheld, the foundation for disallowing credit failed, and the demand, interest and penalty were set aside. Alleged clandestine removal also required affirmative proof, and computer printouts alone were insufficient without compliance with statutory admissibility requirements and corroborative evidence of raw material, manufacture, clearances, transport or buyers; the demand and penalties on this count were likewise set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Cenvat credit taken on invoices issued by the Jammu-based supplier was inadmissible when the supplier's duty payment and exemption benefit were held to be valid in separate proceedings; (ii) Whether the demand of duty on alleged clandestine removal could be sustained solely on the basis of computer printouts and without corroborative evidence.

Issue (i): Whether Cenvat credit taken on invoices issued by the Jammu-based supplier was inadmissible when the supplier's duty payment and exemption benefit were held to be valid in separate proceedings.

Analysis: The demand of credit rested entirely on the premise that the supplier had misused the area-based exemption and had issued bogus invoices. However, the Tribunal noted that the very foundation of that allegation had already been negated in the supplier's own proceedings, where the exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-CE was held to have been correctly availed and the duty demand was set aside. Once the supplier was found to be a genuine manufacturer lawfully availing the notification, the basis for denying credit to the purchaser disappeared.

Conclusion: The Cenvat credit was held to be admissible and the demand, interest, and penalty on this count were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand of duty on alleged clandestine removal could be sustained solely on the basis of computer printouts and without corroborative evidence.

Analysis: The alleged clandestine removal was founded only on four pages of computer printouts. The Tribunal held that the evidentiary value of such material had to satisfy the requirements of Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, including regular use of the computer in the ordinary course of business and a reliable foundation for admissibility. Apart from those printouts, no corroborative evidence was produced to establish receipt of raw material, manufacture, clearances, transport, or identification of buyers. As clandestine removal is a serious allegation that must be proved by positive evidence, the printouts alone were insufficient.

Conclusion: The clandestine removal demand, related interest, and penalties were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The entire duty demand and penalties were deleted, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Cenvat credit cannot be denied when the very allegation against the supplier is disproved in final proceedings, and clandestine removal cannot be sustained on uncorroborated computer printouts unless they satisfy statutory admissibility requirements and are supported by affirmative evidence.

---