2025 (6) TMI 1846 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - paper transaction - non-existent transporters - appellant did not receive the goods - HELD THAT - It is found that in this case it is a fact on record that after Modi Alloys Metalics Pvt. Ltd. no investigation was conducted to deny cenvat credit to the appellant. Moreover the appellant s contention is that they have received the said inputs which has been used in manufacturing of their final products which ultimately suffered duty. The Revenue has not come with any evidence that if they have not received such goods then from where the appellant had procured the inputs to manufacture final product on which they have paid the duty. In that circumstances cenvat credit cannot be denied to the appellant on assumption and presumption. The appellants are entitled to take cenvat credit which they have already taken. In that circumstances the appeal filed by the appellants are allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal are:

• Whether the appellant, a manufacturer of steel items, is entitled to claim Cenvat credit on inputs received from a trader, M/s D.K. Steel India, despite allegations that the inputs were not actually received by the trader and that the transaction was only on paper?
• Whether denial of Cenvat credit to the appellant is justified in the absence of any investigation or evidence proving non-receipt of goods by the appellant or the intermediary trader?
• Whether the principle of non-discrimination applies when a similarly situated party (M/s Durga Multimetals Pvt. Ltd.) was allowed Cenvat credit on identical facts, but the appellant was denied the same?

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Entitlement to Cenvat Credit on Inputs Received from a Trader Alleged to be a Paper Transaction

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Cenvat Credit Rules allow manufacturers to claim credit on inputs used in manufacturing final products. The law requires that inputs must be received and used in manufacture to claim credit. The Tribunal referred to the precedent set in M/s Chaudhary Steel Traders Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T. Ludhiana (2015 (329) E.L.T. 934 (Tri.-Del.)), which supports the claim of credit in absence of evidence disproving receipt of goods.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the Revenue alleged that M/s D.K. Steel India, the trader supplying inputs to the appellant, did not receive goods from the first stage dealer, M/s Modi Alloys & Metalics Pvt. Ltd., thereby rendering the transaction a paper transaction. However, the Tribunal emphasized that no investigation was conducted against the appellant or the trader to establish non-receipt of goods. The appellant contended that they had received the inputs and used them in manufacture, paying duty on the final products.

Key evidence and findings: No concrete evidence or investigation was presented by the Revenue to prove that the appellant did not receive the inputs. The appellant's assertion of receipt and use of inputs remained unchallenged by any substantive proof.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal held that denial of Cenvat credit cannot be based on assumptions or presumptions in the absence of evidence. Since the appellant had paid duty on the final products, it indicated use of inputs, supporting entitlement to credit.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue's argument that the trader did not receive goods and that the transporters were non-existent was rejected due to lack of investigation and evidence. The appellant's reliance on the precedent and assertion of receipt was accepted.

Conclusion: The appellant is entitled to claim Cenvat credit on inputs received from the trader, as the Revenue failed to establish non-receipt of goods.

Issue 2: Denial of Cenvat Credit Without Investigation and Evidence

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The principle of natural justice and statutory provisions require that denial of credit must be based on evidence and proper investigation. Mere allegations or assumptions do not suffice.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that no investigation was conducted against the appellant, the trader, or the transporters to substantiate the Revenue's claims. The Revenue did not produce any corroborative evidence to justify denial of credit.

Key evidence and findings: The absence of investigation reports, transport records, or any documentary proof was noted. The appellant's claim of receipt and use of inputs remained unrefuted.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that denial of credit without evidence or investigation is not sustainable. The appellant's entitlement to credit stands unless disproved by credible evidence.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue's reliance on the non-existence of transporters and non-receipt of goods by the trader was dismissed due to lack of inquiry or proof.

Conclusion: Denial of Cenvat credit without investigation or evidence is unjustified; credit must be allowed.

Issue 3: Non-Discrimination in Granting Cenvat Credit Compared to Similarly Situated Party

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The principle of equality before law mandates that similarly situated parties be treated alike. The Tribunal referred to the decision in the case of M/s Durga Multimetals Pvt. Ltd., where on identical facts, Cenvat credit was allowed.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed credit to M/s Durga Multimetals Pvt. Ltd. on the same grounds where no investigation or evidence disproved receipt of goods, but denied credit to the appellant without similar findings.

Key evidence and findings: The order in the Durga Multimetals case highlighted absence of investigation, no corroborative evidence, and no proof of paper transactions, leading to allowance of credit.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal held that such differential treatment amounted to discrimination and was not justified.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue failed to provide any rationale for disparate treatment of the appellant vis-`a-vis Durga Multimetals.

Conclusion: The appellant cannot be denied credit on grounds where a similarly placed party was allowed credit; the impugned order is discriminatory and unsustainable.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal held:

"In that circumstances, cenvat credit cannot be denied to the appellant on assumption and presumption."

"The Revenue has not come with any evidence that if they have not received such goods then from where the appellant had procured the inputs to manufacture final product on which they have paid the duty."

"No investigation regarding the goods and records have been brought on record as corroborative evidence against the appellant."

"No investigations about the appellant has been made as to how the party has taken credit on the basis of paper transactions."

"The investigation and enquiry regarding transport of goods from the transporter who brought goods to the appellant has not been conducted and brought nothing to record to prove anything against the appellants."

"Accordingly, the same are set aside. In result, I hold that the appellants are entitled to take cenvat credit which they have already taken."

Core principles established include the necessity of evidence and investigation before denial of Cenvat credit, the inadmissibility of denial based on mere assumptions, and the requirement of non-discriminatory treatment of similarly situated parties.

Final determinations:

• The appellant is entitled to Cenvat credit on inputs received from the trader.
• Denial of credit without investigation or evidence is unsustainable.
• The impugned order denying credit is discriminatory and is set aside.
• The appeal is allowed with consequential relief.