Modvat credit on non-received inputs: invoice evidence and vehicle records were insufficient to prove factory receipt.

Under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, Modvat credit on ship-breaking scrap was denied because the assessee could not prove physical receipt of inputs in the factory. Transport records were tested against RTO data, and the vehicle numbers in invoices were found to relate to motor cycles, auto-rickshaws, non-existing numbers, and other non-goods vehicles. RG 23A entries alone were held insufficient without gate registers or reliable freight/payment records. On that basis, wrongful availment of credit attracted extended-period recovery, interest under Section 11AB, and penalty under Section 11AC, with personal liability also noted for the Managing Director and invoice-issuing suppliers; the penalties were reduced on the facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Modvat credit on ship-breaking scrap was correctly denied on the ground that the inputs were not received in the factory. (ii) Whether the penalties, interest, and connected liabilities were sustainable and to what extent.

Issue (i): Whether Modvat credit on ship-breaking scrap was correctly denied on the ground that the inputs were not received in the factory.

Analysis: Under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, credit was admissible only on inputs received in the factory under cover of a proper invoice. The invoices and transport particulars were tested against RTO records, and many vehicle numbers were found to relate to motor cycles, auto-rickshaws, non-existing numbers, and other non-goods vehicles. The assessee failed to produce gate registers or reliable freight/payment records to establish receipt of the goods. Mere maintenance of RG 23A entries did not prove physical receipt of inputs. On this evidentiary basis, the presumption of non-receipt stood unrebutted.

Conclusion: The denial of Modvat credit was justified and the demand for reversal of credit was upheld in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalties, interest, and connected liabilities were sustainable and to what extent.

Analysis: Once wrong availment of credit on non-received inputs was established, invocation of the extended period and recovery provisions was sustained. Interest was held chargeable under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Penalty on the company under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was found imposable, but the facts did not warrant the maximum quantum. The Managing Director was found to be concerned with the day-to-day affairs, justifying personal penalty, and the suppliers were also found liable for issuing invoices with incorrect vehicle particulars and failing to explain the discrepancies.

Conclusion: The liabilities were upheld, but the penalties on the company and Managing Director were reduced, and the appeals were partly allowed for the appellants while being rejected for the suppliers.

Final Conclusion: The order sustained the denial of Modvat credit and the related demand, while granting limited relief by reducing the quantum of penalties.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Department establishes, by credible material, that inputs shown in invoices were not physically received in the factory, the assessee must rebut the presumption with reliable evidence; failing that, credit may be denied and consequential interest and penalty can follow, subject to appropriate reduction on the facts.

---