SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(CESTAT) 372

CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
JODHPUR 1 – Appellant
Versus
PARADISE STEELS PVT LTD – Respondent
E/51315/2019



CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH- COURT NO. I EXCISE APPEAL NO. 51315 OF 2019 WITH EXCISE CROSS NO. 50567 OF 2019 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 226-227(CRM)CE/JDR/2019 dated 11.03.2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Central Goods & Service Tax, Jodhpur)

Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST .…Appellant G-105, New Industrial Area Basni, Near Diesel Shed JODHPUR – 342 003 Versus M/s Paradise Steels Pvt. Ltd. .Respondent E-37, MIA, Basani JODHPUR AND EXCISE APPEAL NO. 51316 OF 2019 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 226-227(CRM)CE/JDR/2019 dated 11.03.2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Central Goods & Service Tax, Jodhpur)

Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST .…Appellant G-105, New Industrial Area Basni, Near Diesel Shed JODHPUR – 342 003 Versus Shri Rakshit Bhansali .…Respondent Director M/s Paradise Steels Pvt. Ltd.

E-37, MIA, Basani JODHPUR APPEARANCE Shri Bhagwat Dayal, authorised representative of the department Shri Jitin Singhal, advocate for the respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT HON’BLE MR. P. V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing : June 23, 2025 Date of Decision : June 27, 2025 FINAL ORDER NOs. 50939-50940/2025 JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA :

Excise Appeal No. 51315 of 2019 has been filed by the department to assail that part of the order dated March 11, 2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that has allowed the appeal filed by M/s Paradise Steels Pvt. Ltd.1 against the order dated January 12, 2018 passed by the Joint Commissioner confirming the demand of CENVAT duty under section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 19442 with interest and penalty.

2. Excise Appeal No. 51316 of 2019 has been filed by the department to assail that part of the order dated March 11, 2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by which the appeal filed by Rakshit Bhansali, Director of Paradise Steels against the order dated January 12, 2018 passed by the Joint Commissioner imposing penalty of Rs. 2 lacs upon him under rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 20023 has been allowed.

3. Excise Cross No. 50567 of 2019 has been filed by Paradise Steels in Excise Appeal No. 51315 of 2019 for dismissal of the appeal.

4. Paradise Steels is engaged in the manufacture of stainless steel patta/patti. During investigation of the factory premises, 1 Paradise Steels

2 the Central Excise Act

3 2002 Rules certain records and a Lenovo computer were resumed and on an analysis of the records and data maintained in the computer, it was observed that Paradise Steels had cleared cold rolled patta in the guise of hot rolled patta. As hot rolled patta was exempted from payment of central excise duty, Paradise Steels had reversed 6% amount of total value of exempted goods instead of paying duty @ 12.36%. Based on the data retrieved from the computer and the statement of Rakshit Bhansali, Director of Paradise Steels, it appeared to the department that Paradise Steels had clandestinely cleared the goods and hence a show cause notice was issued calling upon Paradise Steels to show cause as to why it should not pay the differential central excise duty with interest and penalty.

5. Paradise Steels filed a reply to the show cause notice and denied the allegations made therein.

6. The adjudicating authority, however, confirmed CENVAT duty with interest and penalty and also imposed penalty of Rs. 2 lacs upon the Director of Paradise Steels.

7. Feeling aggrieved, Paradise Steels and its Director filed two appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). These two appeals have been allowed by order dated March 11, 2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

8. The first issue that was examined by the Commissioner (Appeals) was regarding non-compliance of the provisions of section 36B of the Central Excise Act and the second was with regard to the burden of proving the allegations made in the show cause notice.

9. With regard to the first issue, the Commissioner (Appeals

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top