2025 (6) TMI 681 - AT - Central Excise

CESTAT sets aside CENVAT credit recovery due to inadequate evidence and flawed investigation procedures

M/s. OM Shakti Smelters Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Durgapur And Shri Ghanashyam Prasad, Director (Noticee No. 2) M/s. OM Shakti Smelters Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Durgapur

M/s. OM Shakti Smelters Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Durgapur And Shri Ghanashyam Prasad, Director (Noticee No. 2) M/s. OM Shakti ... 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in the judgment are:(a) Whether the Cenvat Credit availed by the appellant on consignments of MS Round, TMT Cutting, end cutting, etc., is recoverable on the ground that the goods were not physically received but only paper invoices were issued by the vendor.(b) Whether the investigation and evidence collected by the Department, including statements of vehicle owners and other corroborative material, are sufficient and reliable to confirm the demand.(c) Whether the extended period of limitation for issuing the Show Cause Notice was rightly invoked by the Department.(d) Whether the failure to make the vendor a co-noticee in the proceedings against the appellant violates statutory provisions and principles of natural justice.(e) Whether the penalty imposed on the Director of the appellant company is sustainable in light of the findings on merits and limitation.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue (a): Recovery of Cenvat Credit on ground of non-receipt of goodsThe relevant legal framework includes the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the Cenvat Credit Rules, which permit credit only if inputs are actually received and used in manufacture. The Department alleged that the appellant availed Cenvat Credit on inputs not physically received, based on purported recovery of documents from the vendor indicating issuance of paper invoices without actual dispatch.The Court noted that the appellant produced valid Central Excise Invoices showing Assessable Value, Excise Duty, and VAT paid by the vendor, who filed returns and paid duty accepted by jurisdictional authorities. The appellant also maintained statutory books (RG 23 A Part I and II) and ER 1 Returns reflecting receipt and utilization of inputs. Payments to the vendor were made through banking channels, and freight payments to transporters were supported by vouchers and service tax paid on reverse charge basis.The Department's investigation, however, was limited to statements from only 70 vehicle owners out of 160 transactions, many of which were not recorded under Section 14 of the CEA 1944, and lacked affirmation under Section 9D regarding voluntariness. The Court found these statements lacked evidentiary value. Further, the Department did not investigate input-output ratios or verify whether the appellant could have manufactured finished goods without inputs from the vendor, nor did it examine whether the appellant procured inputs elsewhere.The Court held that the appellant produced sufficient documentary evidence to rebut the Department's allegations, and the Department failed to properly investigate or consider the factual evidence. Therefore, the demand on the ground of non-receipt of goods was not sustainable.Issue (b): Sufficiency and reliability of Department's investigation and evidenceThe Department relied heavily on statements of vehicle owners denying engagement with drivers or receipt of freight payments, recorded 2 to 5 years after the transactions. The appellant argued that such delayed statements could not be reliable and were not corroborated by any other evidence. The Department did not secure statements from all vehicle owners, nor did it conduct searches or recover private records indicating cash transactions to rebut banking channel payments.The Court found the investigation incomplete and inadequate, noting the absence of adverse statements for 90 out of 160 transactions and the lack of proper evidentiary value of recorded statements. The Department's failure to consider the appellant's documentary evidence and the incomplete verification vitiated the proceedings.Issue (c): Invocation of extended period of limitationThe Show Cause Notice was issued invoking extended period provisions. The appellant contended that no suppression or misstatement was established by the Department, as all transactions were recorded in statutory books and monthly returns, audited by the Department, with no prior query raised. The Department did not produce evidence of suppression or concealment necessary to invoke extended limitation.The Court relied on precedent that extended limitation can be invoked only upon proof of suppression or misstatement, and not on assumptions. Since the Department failed to establish such suppression, the invocation of extended limitation was held to be legally unsustainable.Issue (d): Non-inclusion of vendor as co-noticeeThe Department made the partner of the vendor a co-noticee but did not make the vendor firm itself a co-noticee. The Court observed that the vendor is a distinct legal entity from its partner and that non-inclusion of the vendor violated statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. The vendor was not given opportunity to respond to allegations of paper transactions, despite the entire proceedings being premised on the vendor's conduct.Further, the vendor's returns and duty payments were accepted by authorities, and there was no indication that the vendor had not accounted for the invoices. The Court held that this procedural lapse rendered the proceedings against the appellant legally unsustainable.Issue (e): Penalty on DirectorSince the demand was set aside on merits and limitation grounds, the penalty imposed on the Director was also held unsustainable and was set aside accordingly.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'We do not find such statements / letters to have any evidentiary value whatsoever. Viewed with the fact that the Revenue could lay hands only on 70 out of the 160 vehicle owners, we find that the verification is not even complete in respect of all the transactions. On this ground itself the proceedings are vitiated and liable to be set aside.''The appellant has produced sufficient number of evidence from their side in their defence. On the other hand, the Revenue not only failed to properly investigate the issue, but also did not consider the factual evidence before confirming the demand.''If the Dept alleges that the appellants have not received the inputs in question, in order to undertake the manufacturing activity, the appellants should have received such goods from other third party on cash payment basis. No evidence to this effect has been found by the Revenue during their investigation.''By non- making of the vendor as a Co-noticee, to enable them to counter the allegation that they have only carried out paper transaction, is contrary to the statutory provisions as well as principles of natural justice. In such a case, the present proceedings against the appellant are erroneous and would have no legal legs to stand on.''It is well settled fact that for invoking the extended period of limitation suppression/ misstatement etc. must be established by the Department, and it cannot be based on presumption.''The confirmed demand is legally not sustainable on merits and on account of time bar.''Since we have allowed the appeal filed by the appellant company both on merits as well as on account of limitation, the penalty imposed on the Director of the company also does not sustain.'