2009 (6) TMI 722 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved: Appeal against imposition of penalties based on fake invoices.

Analysis:
1. Issue of Penalties Based on Fake Invoices:
- The case involved penalties imposed on the respondents for using fake invoices to claim credit. The Advocate for the respondents argued that the penalties were set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) citing a Tribunal decision in a similar case.

2. Evidence of Fake Invoices:
- The Revenue, represented by the DR, reiterated the grounds of appeal, emphasizing the substantial evidence indicating that credit was taken based on fake invoices. The DR pointed out that the vehicle numbers mentioned in the invoices were for two-wheelers like scooters and mopeds, raising suspicions about the authenticity of the transactions.

3. Evaluation of Commissioner's Decision:
- Upon reviewing the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, the judge found that the duty and penalty were set aside primarily on the basis of a newspaper report. The Commissioner had referred to instances of trucks using fake number plates, as reported in newspapers, to support the decision.

4. Judicial Analysis and Decision:
- The judge expressed inability to accept the Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings, noting that they were solely based on a newspaper report without proper examination of evidence. Citing a previous Tribunal decision, the judge decided to set aside the Commissioner's order and remand the case to the original authority for a fresh decision based on the evidence presented.

5. Legal Precedents and Burden of Proof:
- The judge referred to a previous case where the burden of proof was on the assessee to demonstrate the authenticity of transactions when faced with evidence indicating discrepancies in vehicle numbers, transporters denying goods transportation, or dealers lacking proper premises. The judge upheld the Revenue's contention that in cases where evidence showed discrepancies, the credit could be rightfully denied.

6. Final Decision and Remand:
- Considering the above discussions, the judge set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s orders and remanded all matters to the original authority for a fresh decision in light of the legal precedents and burden of proof. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed by way of remand, indicating a procedural step for further evaluation of the case.