Actual receipt of goods governs Cenvat credit; unreliable transport particulars can defeat the credit chain and justify remand.

Validity of Cenvat credit on imported scrap depends on proof of actual receipt and delivery of the goods. Registered dealers must account for the goods and issue documents only when supply is real; invoices and end-use certificates alone are insufficient where transport particulars are seriously discrepant. When vehicle numbers are implausible or unverified, the burden shifts to the dealers and recipients to establish delivery through reliable evidence. Where the appellate record is incomplete and the parties seek to file further material, the dispute may be remitted for fresh adjudication with an opportunity to produce submissions and evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the registered dealers had discharged the burden of proving actual delivery of the imported goods so as to validly pass on Cenvat credit; (ii) whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration.

Issue (i): Whether the registered dealers had discharged the burden of proving actual delivery of the imported goods so as to validly pass on Cenvat credit.

Analysis: The imported scrap was cleared under exemption subject to proof of end-use, and the registered dealers were required, as registered dealers under the central excise framework, to account for the goods and issue valid documents only where the goods were actually supplied. The record showed serious discrepancies in transport particulars, including vehicle numbers belonging to two-wheelers, three-wheelers and even numbers not allotted by transport authorities. Once such discrepancies were shown, the burden shifted to the dealers and the manufacturers to establish actual delivery by reliable evidence. The invoices and end-use certificates, without more, were not treated as sufficient to sustain credit where the factual basis of supply itself remained doubtful.

Conclusion: The dealers had not, on the existing record, satisfactorily established actual supply so as to justify the credit chain.

Issue (ii): Whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) had dealt with the dispute in a cryptic manner without examining the dealers' obligations, the manufacturers' entitlement to credit, or the effect of the transport discrepancies in a detailed way. Since the parties sought an opportunity to place further evidence and the issues were interlinked, a fresh adjudication by the original authority was considered necessary in the interest of justice.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh consideration after giving the parties an opportunity to file submissions and evidence.

Final Conclusion: The credit dispute was left open for de novo determination, with the earlier orders set aside and the case sent back for detailed factual and legal examination.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the validity of Cenvat credit depends on actual receipt of goods, the dealer and recipient must establish delivery through reliable evidence, and serious discrepancies in transport particulars justify remand for fresh adjudication.

---