##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4744-DB

CEA No. 43 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL No. 43 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

1. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX

AND CENTRAL EXCISE BENGALURU NORTH WEST,

2^ND FLOOR, SOUTH WING,

BMTC BUS STAND COMPLEX,

SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560051,

EARLIER KNOWN AS THE COMMISSIONER OF

CENTRAL EXCISE,

BANGALORE II COMMISSIONERATE,

C. R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD,

BANGALORE 560 001.

…APPELLANT

Digitally signed

by VALLI

(BY SRI ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL)

MARIMUT HU

Location: HIGH

AND:

COURT OF

KARNATAKA

1. M.E.RAVIRAJA,

MANAGING DIRECTOR,

M/S MAHARAJA SOAPS INDUSTRY PVT. LTD.,

No.768/500, LOKIRERE MAIN ROAD,

DEVANAGERE, KARNATAKA-577005.

2. M.T.PUTTARAJU, PROPRIETOR

KEERTHANA AGENCY,

MASAGODU VILLAGE, SOMAVARPET,

MADIKERI, KARNATAKA-571236.

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4744-DB

CEA No. 43 of 2025

HC-KAR

3. E.SHASHIKALA, DIRECTOR,

M/S MAHARAJA SOAPS INDUSTRY PVT. LTD.,

No.768/500, LOKIKERE MAIN ROAD,

DEVANAGERE, KARNATAKA-577005.

4. GEE GEE KAY PVT. LTD.,

RS.No.40/5, PINNACHI KUPPAM ROAD,

PILLAIYARKUPPAM PUDUCHERRY,

KERALA-607402.

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

5. M/S MAHARAJA SOAPS INDUSTRY

PRIVATE LIMITED,

No.768/500, LOKIKERE MAIN ROAD,

DEVANAGERE, KARNATAKA-577 005,

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

6. SHRI MURILIDHARA T, PROPRIETOR,

M/S LIKITHA AGENCY,

38, KSRTC COLONY, HOSUR ROAD,

ANEKAL, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-526106.

7. MAHARAJA INDUSTRIES,

51/A, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA,

LOKIKERE MAIN ROAD, DEVANAGERE,

KARNATAKA-577055.

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI M. S. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE)

THIS CEA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 35G OF THE

CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL

AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE HON'BLE

CESTAT, BANGALORE IN FINAL ORDER No.20414-20420/2025

DATED 28.02.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONFIRM THE

ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL DATED 12.09.2013 ORDER PASSED BY

THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, BENGALURU SOUTH

BENGALURU.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4744-DB

CEA No. 43 of 2025

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND)

Heard Sri Aravind V. Chavan, learned counsel for the

appellant-Revenue and Sri M.S. Nagaraja, learned counsel for

the respondents.

2. This appeal is preferred by the Revenue challenging

the order passed by the Central Excise and Service Tax

Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as “the

Tribunal”) in Final Order No.20414–20420/2025 dated

28.02.2025.

3. In the appeal, the following substantial questions of

law are raised:

"1. Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT was correct in

law in allowing the appeal of the assessee and setting

aside the Order-in-Original, without properly

examining and appreciating the conclusive evidences

of clandestine manufacture and removal including

seizure of unaccounted goods and vehicle, supplier

and dealer confessions, computer data, and stock

statements furnished to banks which were duly relied

upon by the Adjudicating Authority while confirming

the demand?

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4744-DB

CEA No. 43 of 2025

HC-KAR

2. Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT was justified in

setting aside the penalties imposed under Rule 26 of

the Central Excise Rules, 2002, by allowing the co-

noticees' appeals, despite clear findings by the

Adjudicating Authority establishing active participation

and abetment of the offence by the Managing

Director, Director, suppliers, and dealers in the

clandestine manufacture and removal of excisable

goods?

3. Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT was justified in

disregarding the voluntary and admissible statement

of the Managing Director recorded under Section 14 of

the Central Excise Act, 1944, duly corroborated by

independent evidence, merely on the basis of a

belated and unsubstantiated retraction?

4. Whether the findings of the Tribunal to reject

the evidences adduced by the dep