Order Date – 21 July 2022

Facts – 

• The appellant, M/s. Hitech Mineral Industries (Covai) Pvt. Ltd., during the course of investigation, Revenue, inter alia, noted that that the documents did not corroborate the actual receipt of goods/scrap in question which are different; that one set of delivery notes revealed the despatch from Trichy to Salem as against the claim of the noticees that the scrap had been cleared from Coimbatore by M/s. Santhi Steels, for which duty-paid delivery invoice was issued.
• A show cause notice dated 07.12.2011 was issued to five co-noticees since the Revenue had suspected that appellant had wrongly availed CENVAT Credit and had conspired with other co-noticees in the preparation of invalid documents.
• Appellant contended that Credit was availed based on the invoices issued under Rule 11 ibid. and that the said invoices contained all required particulars in terms of Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and that the duty amount mentioned in the said invoices were paid to M/s. Santhi Steels, Coimbatore.
• Aggrieved, the appellant has filed for an appeal.

Issue – 

• Whether the appellant has rightly availed the Cenvat Credit?

Order – 

• The authorities observed that when a statutory notice was issued, it was incumbent upon the appellant to at least offer an explanation to clear the doubts pointed out. The appellant, however, without bothering to do so, has only contended that the documents / evidences relied upon by the Revenue were vague, etc., despite the fact that the Revenue had also relied on his statement recorded, which is not rebutted. 
• There is no supporting material placed on record by the appellant or even by M/s. Hitech Mineral Industries (Covai) Pvt. Ltd. other than a mere statement that the credit in question have been availed in accordance with law, to clear the doubts in the mind of the Revenue.
• The authorities held that there is no reason to interfere with the Order-in-Original and upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).