Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2013 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 1532 - HC - Central ExciseRebate of excise duty - exports made under ARE-1 - CENVAT Credit claim - Bogus invoices - During verification of the rebate claim it was discovered that certain suppliers of grey fabrics were non-existent/fictitious persons. The processor took credit based on invoices purported to be issued by the suppliers who are found fictitious - Held that:- After considering the relevant provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and on interpretation of Rule 7(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, it is held that Rule 7(2) cast a further duty upon the appellants to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the inputs or the capital goods in respect of which they have taken the credit of CENVAT are the goods on which appropriate duty of excise as indicated in the documents accompanying the goods, has been paid. In the present case also, it has been found that no proper care and/or reasonable steps were taken to ensure the proper identity and existence of the suppliers. The petitioners did not produce any evidence to prove the transaction of grey fabrics as recorded in their books was genuine transaction. The petitioners have also not denied that the said suppliers are bogus, fake, fictitious and non-existing. - petitioners were knowing that no such suppliers existed, still endorsed the fake invoices to the processors for facilitating availment of CENVAT credit. Under the circumstances, no error has been committed by the adjudicating authority in denying the part rebate claim with respect to the CENVAT credit with respect to those bogus, fake, fictitious and non-existing invoices and no error has been committed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the revisional authorities in confirming the orders of rejecting the part rebate claim. No case has been made out to interfere with the impugned orders. - Decided against Assessee.
|