TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1150
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hese facts. That such inputs have borne duty of excise is evident from invoices. The appellant have a strong case which gets supported by the Tribunal decision in Em Ess Electricals (supra). On the other hand, evidence collected by the Department revealed that no manufacturing had been undertaken by Saha Industries, which could result in generation of waste and scrap of MS iron and steel and which were received by the appellant as inputs. As the latter matter is presently pending for determination by the Tribunal, it will be in the fitness of things if the matter is relooked after decision is rendered by the Tribunal in Saha Industries. I, therefore, set the impugned order and refer the matter for decision afresh by the lower authority and after the Tribunal has rendered decision in Saha Industries. The appeal is disposed of in these terms." [Emphasis supplied] 1.1. For an update on the status of the M/s.Saha Industries case, it is informed that the said Appeal has since been disposed of by the Tribunal and Final Order No. 77471-77473 of 2023 dated 09.11.2023 in the case of M/s. Saha Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-V &ors. has since been passed. A copy o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s factory from the said supplier. 4. The Revenue had undertaken detailed investigations in the case of M/s. Saha Industries wherein the Anti-Evasion Team, upon a visit, found no manufacturing activity at the premises, no raw material or finished goods stored at the appellant's (M/s. Saha Industries) premises. It also came to light that the said premises were used by one M/s. BDS Control Systems whereas the said assessee, M/s. Saha Industries, had no activity therein, at the said plot of land measuring 300 sq. ft. The said premises were under the possession and control of M/s. BDS Control Systems and was utilised by them for the manufacture of their own products. 4.1. After going through the facts of the said case of M/s. Saha Industries, the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in an appeal filed by the said assessee, noted that there were no employees or labour found during the visit of the Revenue officers, that the Proprietor and other authorized signatories of M/s. BDS Control Systems had in no uncertain terms intimated to the Department that the 300 sq. ft. premises had been rented out in its entirety to M/s. BDS Control Systems for a fixed monthly rental for the purpose o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Tribunal in the said case, because of the bearing between the present Appeal and the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. Saha Industries (Excise Appeal No. 594 of 2009, Excise Appeal No. 663 of 2009 and Excise Appeal No. 664 of 2009): - "6.11 Therefore, ... ..... It is proved that it is a case of non-receipt of inputs by the appellant assessee as the appellant assessee is not having for manufacturing facility in their premises and the appellant assessee was not maintaining records in terms of Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 6.12 In that circumstances, on the basis of evidences placed by the Revenue on record, we hold that the appellant assessee was involved only in paper transactions by taking invoices without any receipt of the goods in their premises and thereafter, enabling the recipient of the appellant assessee to take cenvat credit without proper receipt of the goods. 6.13 In that circumstances, we hold that the Revenue has made out a case for denial of cenvat credit to the appellant assessee. 6.14 In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the same is upheld. 6.15 I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asis of a plethora of the aforesaid evidence, had alleged mere paper transactions for the purpose of availment of CENVAT Credit. In short, it is the case of the Revenue that the appellant had availed CENVAT Credit on goods that were not at all received at their premises, rather were not produced at all, and therefore, any CENVAT Credit availed thereon was completely irregular, unauthorized and without the sanction of law. 11. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that the inputs were purchased from the supplier on FOR Destination basis and it was only upon the receipt of the said inputs that they had availed the CENVAT Credit, after accounting the said goods in their records and RG-23 Part-I. He also submits that the said goods were duty-paid, for which they had received cenvatable invoices and therefore, they had rightly availed CENVAT Credit on the impugned goods. 11.1. The appellant has further submitted before us that on 26th March, 2008, on the basis of certain investigations initiated into M/s. Saha Industries, the authorities had visited their premises and taken note of the purchase of inputs from M/s. Saha Industries and availment of CENVAT Credit thereon. 12.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... availed by them. 15.1. The appellant's claim that the Department's case is based on assumptions holds no ground in the wake of such strong factual assertions and evidence gathered by the authorities. It is therefore quite clear that the transactions impugned in the matter are no more but paper transactions. The entire scheme is but a well-planned and premediated fraud perpetuated by the appellant, in league with M/s. Saha Industries. Mere indication, in their books of accounts, as to receipt of the inputs (waste and scrap), cannot be substantive enough a piece of evidence to establish their actual receipt in the wake of phenomenal evidence on record to establish nonproduction / non-movement of the desired inputs. 16. In terms of Rule 4(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, CENVAT Credit of inputs, to be used in the manufacture of final product is allowable to the manufacturer only on physical receipt of the goods along with invoices in the factory of the manufacturer. Moreover, a burden of proof is cast upon the manufacturer availing such credit, to establish the admissibility of such credit, in terms of Rule 4(5) ibid. 17. It is therefore clear that the appellant connived....