Ghankun Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi)
The appeals arose from a common order confirming recovery of Cenvat credit of ₹28,40,329, its appropriation and imposition of penalty against the appellant company and its director. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of Sponge Iron and M.S. Ingots and availed Cenvat credit on various raw materials. The Department initiated proceedings after receiving information that certain suppliers and dealers from whom the appellant had procured inputs were non-existent entities and had allegedly issued Cenvatable invoices without actual supply of goods during 2012-13 and 2013-14. Based on the investigation, a show cause notice proposed denial and recovery of the Cenvat credit, which was confirmed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).
Before the Tribunal, the appellant contended that the proceedings formed part of a larger investigation involving the same intermediary parties and that similar matters had already been decided in favour of other assessees. It was further submitted that the demand had been confirmed solely on the basis of third-party statements and evidence collected during investigation. The appellant argued that statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be relied upon unless the procedure prescribed under Section 9D had been followed. It was also submitted that no search had been conducted at the appellant’s premises, no panchnama had been drawn, and the appellant had produced the purchase invoices sought by the Department. According to the appellant, the invoices were valid Cenvatable invoices issued by entities registered with the Department, and the denial of credit was therefore unwarranted.
