Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. In the matter, I observe that in the whole case it was not disputed by the department that:-

i. the appellants had not received inputs on which they had taken Cenvat credit.

ii. the documents on which they had taken Cenvat credit did not contain the specified particulars as prescribed under the Cenvat credit Rules, 2004 iii. the payment of central excise duty which has been shown on the said invoice had not been paid by manufacturer of the inputs.

iv. the inputs on which Cenvat credit has been availed by the appellants had not been used in the manufacture of final products and the said final products have not been cleared on payment of appropriate central Excise duty.

v. the price of the inputs including central excise duty has not been born by the appellants.

Thus it is obvious that the inputs on which Cenvat credit availed by the appellants were received by them in their factory premises, the same was used for manufacture of final products on which appropriate central excise duty was paid by the appellants, appropriate central excise duty was paid on the said inputs and the relevant invoices were containing all the relevant information as prescribed under the Cenvat credit rules, 2004. The payment of the inputs was made through cheques by the appellants to M/s. Harsh & Company, 292, Chandpol Bazar, Jaipur.

11. The Rule 9(5) of the Cenvat credit Rules, 2004 read as that  The manufacturer of final products or the provider of output service shall maintain proper records for the receipt, disposal, consumption and inventory of the input and capital goods in which the relevant information regarding the value, duty paid, CENVAT credit taken and utilized, the person from whom the input or capital goods have been procured is recorded and the burden of proof regarding the admissibility of the CENVAT credit shall lie upon the manufacturer or provider of output service taking such credit. I observe that in the present case it is nowhere alleged that the appellants have not maintained proper records of the said inputs as mentioned above and further also I observe that the appellants have received the goods on the invoices of the M/s. Harsh & Company, 292, Chandpol Bazar, Jaipur, they have received the quantity mentioned in the invoice in their unit and have made payments through cheques thereafter. On the contrary department have not disputed that the goods were not received by the Appellants and it was only a paper transaction. Thus it is clear that this mode of transactions was bona fide on part of appellants, in this circumstances it has been accepted that buyer can take only those steps which are in their control. He is not expected to verify records of supplier to check whether in fact the supplier has paid duty on goods supplied by him. He cannot verify whether their supplier is in fact registered with excise. He has to rely on statements made by supplier and documents supplied by him. The only reasonable steps he can take are to ensure that the supplier seems to be trustworthy, inputs are in fact received and documents prima facie appear to be genuine. Making payment by cheque to seller will prove his bona fide. Moreover in the present case it can not be presumed that the appellants were verify the genuineness of the first stage dealer when they very much aware about their second stage dealer i.e. M/s. Harsh & Company, 292, Chandpol Bazar, Jaipur from whom they had received the said inputs. From the above, I am of the considered view that the appellants have discharged their burden as prescribed under Rule 9(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.