Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Jain Industrial & Lighting Corpn vs Cce, Delhi-I on 18 June, 2012
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM,
NEW DELHI-110066
COURT NO. II
Central Excise Appeal No.88/2009-SM
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 178/CE/DLH/2008 dated 10.10.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi-I, New Delhi]
Date of Hearing/decision: 18th June, 2012
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Jain Industrial & Lighting Corpn. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Delhi-I Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri Ravindra Singh, Conslt.
Present for the Respondent : Mrs. R. Jagdev, D.R. Coram: Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member;
FINAL ORDER NO. ________________ Per D.N. Panda:
This appeal is on a very narrow compass as to whether the goods covered by impugned invoices ever reached factory of the appellant to entitle the appellant to Cenvat credit.
2. Allegation of Revenue was that Satvik Industries said to have issued certain invoices showing sale of goods covered by those invoices did not reach factory of the appellant and transportation of such goods by Maruti Van registered as DL 9CB 1541 was also impracticable. Statement recorded from Shri Rajesh Jain, Director of M/s. Satvik Industries on 18.2.2003, 6.3.2003 and 2.4.2004 established that the inputs in question were not delivered to the appellant but only invoices were issued. Appellant took Cenvat credit on the basis of papers only without the inputs being received at the factory. Such evidence enabled Revenue to adjudicate the matter against appellant denying credit of Rs. 44,672/- with consequential penalty and interest.
3. Learned Authorised Representative appearing on behalf of appellant submitted that the statements recorded from Shri Rajesh Jain did not inculpate the appellant but Revenue took an adverse view. It was unnecessarily questioned by Revenue about the capability of Maruti Van to transport the goods. Therefore, adjudication was made on mere presumptions and suspicion.
4. Learned Representative for Revenue supports the order of the authorities below.
5. Heard both sides and perused the record.
6.1 There is no dispute that the statement recorded from Shri Rajesh Jain was primary evidence and was every vital denying delivery of inputs to Appellant. So also the Maruti Van in question which was claimed to be a medium of transport was not a goods transport vehicle. The appellant did not discard stand of Revenue showing any evidence of receipt of the inputs in question at the factory and utilisation thereof in manufacture. Mere plea of making payment against the impugned invoices does not support appellants case.
6.2 Learned Adjudicating authority in different paragraphs of the adjudication order under the Discussion & Findings has brought out clearly about the questionable modus operandi of the appellant who merely enjoyed paper credit without input received in its factory. Statements of Shri Rajesh Jain were considered thoroughly by him. Without any credible evidence to establish receipt and utilisation of input, the matter went against the appellant.
6.3 Learned appellate authority in para 4 of his order examined the averment of the appellant and finding no evidence of receipt of the inputs he concurred with the findings of the learned adjudicating authority. So also he did not accept mode of transport of inputs. When the concurrent finding pointed out that paper credit was enjoyed by Appellant without the input being received in its factory, the appellant was rightly denied Cenvat credit. For no evidence to impeach the appellate finding, appeal of assessee is dismissed.
(Decision and reason of decision pronounced in the Open Court on the date of hearing on 18.6.2012) (D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER RK 4