IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA REGIONAL BENCH – COURT NO. 1 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 20/COMMR/CE/KOL-II/Adjn/2016-17 dated 26.09.2016 passed by the Commissioner, Kolkata-II Central Excise Commissionerate, M.S. Building, Custom House, 15/1, Strand Road, Kolkata – 700 001)

M/s. Roshan Lal Bhagirathmal : Appellant

1, Riverside Road, Shalimar, H owrah – 711 101 VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise : Respondent Kolkata-II Commissionerate, M.S. Building, Custom House, 15/1, Strand Road, Kolkata – 700 001 APPEARANCE:

Shri N.K. Chowdhury, Advocate, for the Appellant Ms. Suman, Authorized Representative, for the Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 75268 / 2026 DATE OF HEARING / DECISION: 19.02.2026 ORDER: [PER SHRI ASHOK JINDAL]

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order for imposition of penalty under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a partnership firm, engaged in the trading of iron and steel products. The appellant obtained Central Excise Dealer’s Registration Certificate. They were purchasing goods from manufacturers and certain dealers, supplying the goods to different manufacturers / consignees either directly or through middlemen / buyers and passing on the credit to the manufacturers. The said manufacturers / consignees of the goods availed CENVAT Credit on receiving the goods, on the strength of invoices issued by the dealers.

3. On the basis of purported information, officers of the Department conducted investigation, by recording the statement of Shri Dinesh Dalmia, Partner of the appellant-firm, on 14.08.2013, wherein he has stated that they were procuring goods from different manufacturers like M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited, M/s. BMW Industries Ltd., M/s. Surya Alloys Industries Ltd., M/s. Hooghly Alloys & Steel Industries Ltd., M/s. Shree Parasnath Re Rolling Mills Ltd. and M/s. Baba Smelters Pvt. Ltd.; that they were receiving orders from different buyers and at the instance of the buyers / middlemen, they supplied the goods directly to the consignees by issuing central excise invoices mentioning therein the name of the buyer / middleman as well as the consignee; that the consignee was also making payment to the buyers / middlemen and the buyers / middlemen were making payments to the trader / appellant.

3.1. During the course of investigation, statement in relation to one middleman / buyer, namely, M/s. R.K. Steel & Company, Belur, was recorded, wherein Shri Mathur Bangal, Accountant of the said firm, on 18.11.2013, inter alia stated that the goods were directly delivered to the consignee’s place at their instance.

3.2. On 05.12.2013, the statement in respect of another middleman / buyer, viz., M/s. D.S. Trading Co., Kolkata was recorded wherein Shri Ambika Pahar, Accountant of the said firm, also stated the same thing, by recording that they had taken delivery of the goods purchased from the appellant, but the same were not unloaded at their godown but directly delivered to the consignee’s place (godown). 3.3. The investigation was also done at the end of the consignees. Statement was recorded from Shri Gopal Patra, Accountant of M/s. Binayak Hi-Tech Engineering Ltd., Howrah (one of the consignees) who, in his statement dated 20.11.2013, inter alia stated that they had received the inputs from the appellant through certain buyers and took CENVAT Credit on such inputs; that the goods were supplied directly from the place of M/s. Roshan Lal Bhagirathmal (appellant herein) to their place.

3.4. On the same date, another consignee, namely, M/s. S.K. Engineering, Santragachi, also stated that they have received the goods directly from the appellant as per the order of the middlemen / buyers. 4. Despite that, it was inferred that there was no sale of goods between the dealer and the consignee and