This reference is filed against the judgment, dated 2-5-2006 by the learned Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal wherein two questions are raised. These are firstly, whether the applicant A can be declined input tax adjustment on electricity consumed in its administrative offices, and secondly, whether the applicant can be declined input tax, adjustment on supplies received by it because the relevant tax invoices are alleged to be fake.
2. A perusal of paragraph 6 of the impugned order of the learned Appellate Tribunal shows that the applicant also runs a canteen operating in its registered premises. And that during the relevant period the applicant deposited an amount of Rs,125,383 inadmissible amount of input tax adjustment against consumption of electricity in the canteen.
' The deposit made by the applicant constitutes its admission that electricity consumption in its premises occurs partly for a non-productive activity. By the said admission on record the first question raised before us is misconceived. The relevant electricity consumption for the purpose of claimed input tax adjustment did not take place in the applicant's office but elsewhere. That suffices to obviate the question framed.
3. The impugned order also notes that during the relevant period the applicant made a deposit of Rs,3,69,097 as inadmissible input tax adjustment against fake invoices from five suppliers. This fact pertains to the second question raised before us; it also contains an acknowledgement that fake invoices were being received and tendered for adjustment by the applicant. It goes without saying that the genuineness of a tax invoice is essential for sustaining a claim of input tax adjustment under the law. Whether in the facts of the case, a disputed invoice is genuine or fake is a question of fact. Before us the learned counsel has not disputed the validity or propriety of any test applied by the respondent-department to establish the genuineness of the invoices tendered by the applicant. Resultantly, in the present case where the respondents dispute the genuineness of the tendered invoices the question raised is one of fact and no legal issue arises for our determination.
The second question posed in the reference is not a question of law and therefore outside the statutory ambit of our jurisdiction.
4. For the reasons given above this reference is dismissed.