CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH- COURT NO. I (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 01/COMM/C.EX.IND/2024-25 dated 26.09.2024/08.10.2024 passed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise GST Bhawan, Indore, M.P.)

M/s. R. S. Company .…Appellant

130, Sanjay Nagar-B.

Opp, Samudayik Bhawan, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan Versus Commissioner of CGST, Central Excise, .…Respondent GST Bhawan, Manik Bhag Palace, Indore-452014, M.P.

WITH Excise Appeal No. 51497 of 2025 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 01/COMM/C.EX.IND/2024-25 dated 26.09.2024/08.10.2024 passed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise GST Bhawan, Indore, M.P.)

Shri Natwar Lal Sharda .…Appellant M-38-39, Mahesh Colony Near Tonk Phatak, Jaipur-302015 Versus Commissioner of CGST, Central Excise, .…Respondent GST Bhawan, Manik Bhag Palace, Indore-452014, M.P.

APPEARANCE:

Shri J.C. Patel and Shri Ankur Upadhyay, Advocates for the Appellant Shri S.K. Ray, Authorised Representative of the Department CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT HON’BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

DATE OF HEARING: 28.04.2026 DATE OF DECISION: 08.05 2026 FINAL ORDER NO’s. 50844-50845/2026 JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA Company¹ to assail that portion of the order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the Commissioner that confirms the demand of central excise duty from the appellant under the proviso to section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944² with interest under section 11AA of the Central Excise Act and penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act.

2. Excise Appeal No. 51497 of 2025 has been filed by Natwar Lal Sharda against that portion of the order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the Commissioner that imposes a penalty upon him under rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002³

3. The appellant claims that it was at the material time engaged in the manufacture of "Gutka" and Natwar Lal Sharda was a partner in the appellant.

4. In February 2000, the office of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence⁴ initiated investigations into alleged clandestine manufacture and removal of Scented Tobacco by one Suresh Enterprises operating at Wgholi, Pune. The search of premises of Suresh Enterprises on 18/19-2-2000 did not result in recovery of documents such as delivery challans, Invoices, purchase orders or Lorry Receipts. However, a Pocket diary was recovered from an employee of Suresh Enterprises by the name Ramesh Pardesi. It is the case of DGCEI that such pocket diary revealed transportation of Scented Tobacco to Indore by the following three transporters:

a) Sarita Roadways, Wagholi, Pune, b) Vijayant Travels, Pune, c) Hari Roadways Corporation, Pune.

1 the appellant

2 the Central Excise Act

3 the Central Excise Rules

4 DGECI

5. The case of DGCIE is that Lorry Receipts resumed from Sarita Roadways showed that Scented Tobacco was transported from Suresh Enterprises to the appellant. According to DGCIE, Peon book produced by Vijayant Travels showed transport of Scented Tobacco from Suresh Enterprises to the appellant. Further, according to DGCEI, Registers resumed from Hari Roadways Corporation, Pune showed transport of Scented Tobacco from Suresh Enterprises to the appellant.

6. According to DGCIE, investigations at the premises of one Laminar Industries, revealed clandestine clearances of laminated rolls (packing material) from Laminar Industries to the appellant.

7. In his statement dated 11-4-2000, Natwar Lal Sharda denied having received unaccounted laminated rolls from Laminar Industries. In his Statement dated 12-7-2001. Natwar Lal Sharda also denied receipt of unaccounted Scented Tobacco alleged to have been transported by the aforesaid transporters. In his Statement dated 24- 7-2001, Natwar Lal Sharda also denied having placed orders for unaccounted laminated rolls on Laminar Industries.

8. However, a show cause notice dated 23-4-2003 was issued to the appellant and Natwar Lal Sharda demanding central excise duty of Rs. 39,44,21,052/- under the proviso