Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
C.C.E. Indore vs M/S. Mittal Appliances Ltd on 7 October, 2016
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi COURT-I Date of hearing/decision: 28.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 07.10.2016 Cross Application No. E/CROSS/242/2010-EX(DB) Appeal No. E/2996/2010-EX(DB) [Arising out of the Order-in-Original No. 16/Commr/CEX/10/2010 dated 06.05.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore] C.C.E. Indore Appellant Vs. M/s. Mittal Appliances Ltd. ... Respondent
Appearance:
Present Shri Amresh Jain, A.R. for the appellant Present Shri Jaideep Wagde, Advocate for the respondent Coram: Honble Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President Honble Mr. B. Ravichandran , Technical Member FINAL ORDER NO.54031/2016 Per B. Ravichandran:
The appeal by the Revenue is against the order dated 06.05.2010 of Commissioner of Central Excise Indore. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of coin blanks liable to central excise duty. They were availing Cenvat Credit on the main raw material, copper and nickel. Certain investigations were carried out by the officers in January 2007. On conclusion of the investigation, proceedings were initiated against the respondent on the ground that the respondent availed Cenvat Credit of Rs. 55,57,808/- on 18 invoices, the goods for which have not been received by the respondent. The case was adjudicated. The commissioner vide impugned order dropped the demand. Aggrieved by this order Revenue is in appeal.
2. The Revenue contended that the respondent were using the services of M/s. Sujay Transporter Company. Shri Atlant Dwivedi, proprietor of the said company denied having transported the said goods. The reliance placed by the Commissioner on the affidavit filed by Shri Ravikant Dwivedi, partner of is M/s. Saral Logistics System Pvt. Ltd. is not proper. It was contended that the facts as alleged in the notice were not properly appreciated by the original authority and the findings are not sustainable.
3. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records.
4. The Cenvat Credit availed by the appellant was sought to be denied mainly on the basis of certain irregularities alleged with reference to transportation and non existence of evidence for transportation of duty paid inputs to the premises of the respondent. The dispute relates to 18 invoices. The respondent claims that these raw materials were actually cleared and received from M/s. Inter Metal Trade Ltd. and M/s. Indo Micro Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. of LRs covered by proper invoices. We have perused the impugned order carefully.
5. The reasons given by the Commissioner to drop the demand is summarized by him as below:
a. The show cause notice does not deny removal of goods from the factory of M/s. Indo Micro Nutrients and M/s. Inter Metal. Nothing has been brought on record to show as to what happened to the goods which are alleged to have not been transported in the trucks in question.
b. It is further noticed that nothing objectionable has been mentioned in the panchnama of search dated 12.01.2007 at the factory premises of M/s. Inter Metal and M/s. Indo Micro Nutrients in respect of the stock of finished goods / inputs.
c. Nothing has been brought on record to show the place to which the goods were sent on payment of duty after removal from the factory of the supplier.
d. Further, the case records are silent on the points that when the trucks in question were not used for transportation then what were the vehicles in which the said goods were transported and to what destination.
e. No discrepancy in the stock of raw material or finished goods was noticed in the factory of M/s. MAL. Nothing has been brought on record to show as to how M/s. MAL produced their final products in the event of not having received the inputs in their factory.
f. It is noticed that M/s. MAL have paid the amount for the purchase of inputs to M/s. Indo Micro Nutrients and M/s. Inter Metal by crossed cheques / DDs. In the event of not having received any inputs, nothing has been brought on record to show as to what happened to the amount so paid by M/s. MAL.
g. M/s. Sujoy Transport Company which later became M/s. Saral Logistics Pvt. Ltd. had four offices. But the investigation did not go through the records of other offices other than located at Sagore Kuti Chauraha.
6. The appeal by Revenue relies on the submission of Shri Atlant Dwivedi proprietor of M/s. Sujay Transport Company. We find that the submission is based on records mentioned at one of his offices situated at Sagar Kuti Chauraha. The original authority has recorded that vehicles which transported the duty paid inputs were deployed by Shri Ravikant Dwivedi Director of M/s. Saral Logistics System Pvt. Ltd. from his office situated in Rama Chauraha. The question regarding the transportation of raw material has been discussed at length by the original authority (para 23, 24 of the impugned order).
7. Further, the original authority also recorded that the freight has been regularly paid on cash payment voucher which are acknowledged by the transporter. The list of such vouchers was also recorded in the impugned order. The original authority also examined certain discrepancies in the vehicle numbers.
8. We find no infirmity in the reasoning and conclusion of the impugned order. The investigation by the Revenue could not in any manner bring out the non receipt of duty paid raw materials or the bogus nature of all the transactions. In the absence of such evidence it will not be legally tenable to deny the credit based piece meal / sketchy evidence, without corroboration.
9. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Appeal by the Revenue is rejected.
[Order Pronounced in the open court on 07.10.2016] (Justice Dr. Satish Chandra) President (B. Ravichandran) Technical Member Bhanu 2 E/2996/2010-EX(DB)