2026-VIL-1422-CESTAT-KOL-CE
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-1422-CESTAT-KOL-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise - Denial of Cenvat credit on alleged non-receipt of inputs based on vehicle registration discrepancies - Department initiated action alleging non-receipt of inputs on the ground that certain vehicles shown in invoices were registered as buses, tractors, passenger three-wheelers and other categories incapable of transporting such quantities, and certain vehicle numbers were non-existent in the VAHAN database - Department proposed recovery of CENVAT Credit with penalties invoking extended period under Section 11A(4) - Whether the Revenue has established by cogent evidence that inputs were never received - HELD - Mere verification of vehicle registration numbers through VAHAN portal without independent investigation is wholly insufficient to establish non-receipt of inputs. The Department failed to investigate suppliers themselves, record statements from suppliers or verify their records to ascertain whether disputed inputs had been sold and dispatched to the appellant - The appellant manufactured substantial quantities of finished excisable goods during the relevant period and discharged applicable central excise duty thereon, which undisputed production cannot be reconciled with the allegation that over 6383 MT of inputs were never received - The appellant produced contemporaneous records including transport documents, transporters' invoices, carriage inward accounts, ledger accounts evidencing payments and statutory records maintained in ordinary course of business - The evidentiary basis adopted by the Revenue suffers from serious infirmities including data reflected on VAHAN portal containing technical inaccuracies and deficiencies – The communications received from alleged vehicle owners relate only to an insignificant fraction and were obtained years after alleged transportation without compliance with Section 14 requirements - No cogent and convincing evidence has been brought on record establishing fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts necessary to invoke extended period of limitation - The impugned order does not merit judicial sustenance and is set aside – The appeals are allowed
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Kasi Viswanathan V

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST Critical issues: ITC on...
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Security-Code
New Code?

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Security-Code
New Code?

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?