TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1750
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Finance have issued Notification No. 02/2017-Central Tax dated 19.06.2017, as amended, for prescribing territorial jurisdiction of Principal Chief Commissioners/Chief Commissioners and their respective Principal Commissioners/ Commissioners of Central Goods and Service Tax & Central Excise for various Commissionerates across the country in exercise of the powers vested on them read with it under Sections 3 and 5 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 139 ibid. As per the said notification dated 19.06.2017. Therefore, considering the aforesaid legal provision and that the respondent department has requested for the concerned jurisdiction of the Central Goods and Service Tax authorities, would hence forth handle the matters relating to this dispute, the revised name and address of the respondent department has been suitably incorporated. The Registry is also directed to incorporate the following changed name and address of the respondent department in the appeal records for the purpose of disposal of the appeal. 3.1 Brief facts of the case, leading to this appeal, are summarized herein below: 3.2 The appellant herein is inter alia, is one of the co-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... manufacturing unit S/Shri Kartar Singh, Cutting machine operator; Om Prakash, worker; Sukhdev and Dharamveer Singh, Supari cutters; have not mentioned anything about the appellant and they had only stated that the supervision of such manufacture in the unregistered premises at Bawana, Delhi, instructions for transportation of manufactured goods etc., were carried under the directions of Shri Manoj Kumar Jha, Supervisor of the manufacturing unit M/s Maa Bhagwati Foods. Even, in the various statements given by the said Shri Manoj Kumar Jha, Supervisor, though he mentioned that Shri Gaurav Kumar as proprietor of the manufacturing unit on 19.01.2017, in the last statement through letter dated 31.01.2017 sent through Jailor, District Jail, he had claimed ultimately that he is the proprietor of M/s Maa Bhagwati Foods. 4.2 Learned counsel further submitted that the role of the appellant is limited to extending loan facility to Shri Manoj Kumar Jha and helping him in procurement of laminates and miscellaneous goods. As the appellant has no role to play with handling of impugned goods involved in illicit clearance, and has nothing to do with such goods, the learned Counsel prayed that i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010, during the period April, 2016 to January, 2017. 8. In the impugned order, learned Commissioner has inter alia dealt with various statements and in respect of the role of the appellant had recorded as follows: "11.2.1 Investigations reveal that Shri Manoj Kumar (Singh), placed orders for raw materials with Shri Shashank Soni, proprietor of M/s. Naina Devi Enterprises, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi and the said raw materials viz. kattha, supari, dry fruits, etc., were supplied against invoices for which payment was made through cheque no. 071091 by M/s. MBF. Investigations have also revealed that order for packaging material viz. printed laminates supplied to M/s. MBF by M/s. Montage Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Noida, was placed by Shri Manoj Kumar (Singh). During search of M/s. Montage Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., the address of the manufacturer imprinted on one Rotgraphic cylinder, used for printing 'Dangal' Brand and 'DG-2 Tobacco' brand on the packing material was of M/s. MBF holding Central Excise Registration No.BTSPK7946PEM002. During examination, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....haran, security guard of premises of M/s. MBF located at G-219, basement, Sector-63, Noida and from his disposition it is evident that Shri. Manoj Kumar (Singh) used to visit the said premises. Telephone no. and vehicle no. of Shri Manoj Kumar (Singh) was also found mentioned in the said notebook. All these facts brought out in the show cause notice have not been disputed by Shri Manoj Kumar (Singh). His only counter to the allegations are found to be very flimsy i.e. he has highlighted that no signature is put against his photograph and therefore he has not be identified by the concerned. Shri Shiv Charan has not mentioned his name but has named some person named "Panditji/poojariji". However, he is silent with regard to his Fortuner vehicle no. and mobile no. being mentioned in the notebook retrieved from of Shri Shiv Charan. He is numb about the claim of Shri Manoj Kumar Jha that he (Shri Manoj Kumar Singh) was the actual owner of M/s MBF on whose instructions Shri Manoj Kumar Jha and Shri Lalit Nagar performed conducted the day to day affairs of M/s. MBF, etc.. 11.2.3 In light of the foregoing, all claims made by Shri Manoj Kumar (Singh) vide his letters dated 07.08.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Twenty Five Crores Only) on Shri Manoj Kumar (Singh) S/o Sh. Dhruv Nath Singh under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002." In the impugned Order and in the SCN, besides the manufacturing unit M/s Maa Bhagvati Foods, the following persons viz., Shri Gaurav Kumar, Proprietor of M/s Maa Bhagwati Foods; Shri Manoj Kumar Jha, Supervisor of the said manufacturing unit; Shri Lalit Nagar, in-charge of godown having cutting machine, roasting machine, katha-lime machines and who use to look after the manufacturing unit in the absence of Manoj Kumar Jha; M/s Montage Enterprises Private Limited, manufacturer of cylinders, printed packing material to the said manufacturing unit; and Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, the appellant herein have been mentioned as co-noticees. 9.1 We further note that as on date, besides the appellant Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, M/s Montage Enterprises Limited vide E/86191/2024 have also filed an appeal before the Tribunal; Shri Gaurav Kumar, though had filed an appeal vide Diary No.872892024, since he had not made requisite pre-deposit as per Central Excise statue, the same has not been registered with the Tribunal. 9.2 In order to examine the disputed issue, we ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... him to show-cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice; xxx xxx xxx xxx (4) Where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, by the reason of- (a) fraud; or (b) collusion; or (c) any wilful mis-statement; or (d) contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty, by any person chargeable with the duty, the Central Excise Officer shall, within five years from the relevant date, serve notice on such person requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice along with interest payable thereon under section 11AA and a penalty equivalent to the duty specified in the notice..." 9.3 On perusal of the case records, particularly the SCN and the impugned order, it transpires that Shri Gaurav Kumar, is the Proprietor of M/s Maa Bhagwati Foods, manufacturing unit involved in the alleged clandestine manufacture and clearances. Further, the role of various persons who have been named as co-noticees are that Shri Manoj Kumar Jha, is the Supervisor o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch goods are liable for confiscation under the Central Excise Act or the rules thereunder. On perusal of the case records and the discussions as above, it could be seen that the undisputed fact on record is that Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, has provided laminates and other miscellaneous goods to M/s Maa Bhagwati Foods and have extended loan facility to Shri Manoj Kumar Jha. No where in the SCN or in any relied upon documents, it is shown as Shri Manoj Kumar Singh is involved in any of the activity specified in Rule 26 ibid. On the other hand, in the statements given by Shri Raj Kumar, Packing worker; Shri Ashok Kumar, Transporter; they have stated that under the supervision of Shri Manoj Kumar Jha, Supervisor of the manufacturing unit M/s Maa Bhagwati Foods, the impugned goods were manufactured at the other Unit situated in the unregistered premises at Bawana, New Delhi and on his directions the goods have been transported from there for further delivery to the persons concerned. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence forthcoming in the investigation and having been established in the impugned order, imposition of penalty under Rule 26 ibid is not legally sustainable. Further, as di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t some papers signed from him. However, the fact that there was a rent agreement executed on 22nd March, 2000 itself and an application was filed for Central Excise registration and a General Bond Form B-1 itself shows that Mr. Gautam was fully conscious and aware of what he was doing while acting on behalf of AJP. 71. As far as Mr. Santosh Kumar Garg is concerned, the link between SFP of which he was a partner and AJP as far as manufacturing and sale of gutka and clandestine removal is concerned has not been established. All that was brought on record was that SFP received royalty payments regularly from AJP. Three statements were recorded of Mr. Santosh Kumar Garg and in none of them he was confronted with the clandestine removal of consignments by the AJP. 72. As far as Mr. Devi Das Garg is concerned, the Department does not deny that he is a permanent resident of Mathura and there is no evidence on record specifically connecting him with the activities of AJP. Conclusion 73. For all the aforementioned reasons, the Court holds that the requisite evidence necessary for levy of penalty on each of the appellants under Rule 26 of the CE Rules, 200....