Case Law Details
Commissioner of Central Excise & ST Vs Shah Alloys Limited (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that documentary evidence has far greater weightage against oral evidence especially when the oral evidence is contrary to the documentary evidence. Accordingly, duty demand unsustained as statutory records duly reflects receipts and consumption of goods.
Facts- The Respondent Company M/s Shah Alloys Limited is engaged in manufacture of S.S. Billets/Ingots & HR/CR Coils/Plates/Sheets, Round /Flat Bars etc. Based on the search operation conducted at various premises and documents/records withdrawn and oral evidences from M/s Shah Alloys Limited and other concerned persons / parties, it was noticed by the investigation that Respondent is engaged in evasion of Central Excise Duty by way of availment of Cenvat Credit on the basis of the invoices issued by the dealers located in Mumbai and Pune without actual receipts of Cenvatable goods i.e. S.S. Pipes/ Sheets/Plates/Coils & S.S (duty paid) Scrap mentioned therein and further to substitute such non receipt of cenvatable goods i.e located in Mumbai and Pune without actual receipts of Cenvatable goods i.e S.S Pipes/Sheets/Plates /Coil or S.S. Secondary/Defective Pipes /Sheets /Plates /Coils & S.S (duty paid) Scrap, they were either directly purchasing/ receiving non duty paid S.S. local scraps (without covering of any legitimate documents) from various scrap suppliers based in Mumbai, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Chennai, etc. or have got arranged the same for them by the respective dealers.
Show cause notice was issued to M/s. Shah Alloys for disallowance and recovery of Cenvat Credit along with interest and penalty and also imposition of penalty on above respondents. In Adjudication, Commissioner vide impugned order dropped the proceedings initiated vide show cause notice. Hence, the Revenue filed these appeals against the order of the Ld. Commissioner.
Conclusion- Since the Revenue failed to prove alternative source of receipt of raw materials and also money flow back from manufacturer/supplier to the assessee, it cannot be said that they had not received the inputs especially when statements relied upon by the Revenue are contrary to the documentary evidence on record produced by the Respondent. Therefore, the finding of the Adjudicating authority on this issue has to be accepted. We also noticed that in the present case the reliance of third party documents /statements while conforming demand against present respondent is also observed to be unjustified and unreasonable.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
