The Principal Commissioner Cgst and Central Excise Vs M/S Mahamaya Ispat

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:46268-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

Digitally signed by HARNEET HARNEET KAUR KAUR Date: 2025.09.11 11:05:18 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

TAX CASE No. 1 of 2019

¶7

The Principal Commissioner Central Tax And Central Excise Central Excise Building, Dhamtari Road, Tikrapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - M/s Mahamaya Ispat 535- C, Urla Industrial Complex, Urla Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Shri Mukesh Agrawal Director M/s Mahamaya Ispat, 535- C, Urla Industrial Complex Urla, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

For Appellant : Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate

¶14

Division Bench

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶16

Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

¶17

Judgment On Board

¶18

2

¶19

10.09.2025

¶20

1. This appeal preferred under Section 35-G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity, “the Act of 1944”) is directed against the impugned final order No. A/5216552166/2018-EX(DB) dated 24/05/2018 (Annexure A/1) by which the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred as the “Tribunal”) has allowed the appeals filed by the respondents herein.

¶21

2. The instant appeal was admitted for hearing on 02/07/2019 by formulating the following substantial questions of law :-

¶22

“(i) Whether the CESTAT is correct in holding that case against the Respondents cannot be sustained since the proceedings against M/s Devi Industries (Devi Iron & Power (P) Ltd.) stands already set aside by the tribunal, without going into the merits as discussed in the Order-in-Original No. RPR/ EXCUS /000/COM/081/2017 dated 14.12.2017 ?

¶23

(ii) Whether the CESTAT is legally correct in holding that in the present case, no tangible evidence has been gathered by the department, without appreciating the facts, the various case law as discussed in the Order-in-Original No. RPR /EXCUS/000/COM/081/2017 dated 14.12.2017?

¶24

(iii) Whether CESTAT is correct in deciding the case in favour of Respondents and passing a nonspeaking order without considering and discussing the evidence put forth by the department ?”

¶25

3. The aforesaid substantial questions of law have arisen for consideration in this appeal on the basis of following factual backdrop :-

¶26

3

¶27

(i) On 02/12/2008, the office-cum-factory premises of M/s Devi Iron and Power Pvt. Ltd. as well as the residential premises of Mohammed Nazirooddin Sheikh, proprietor of M/s KGN Consultants, Raipur, were searched and several incriminating documents/records related to alleged clandestine production and clearance of sponge iron were seized and panchnama was prepared. The factory premises of M/s Devi Iron was again searched on 18/12/2008.

¶28

(ii) A case was booked against the respondent Firm pursuant to the visit to factory premises of M/s Devi Iron and Power Pvt. Ltd. by the Officers of DGCEI, Raipur and show cause notice was issued to them on 03/02/2011 (Annexure A/2) stating as under :-

¶29

“18. Now, therefore, M/s. Mahamaya Ispat (A Division of Abhishek Industries Ltd), 535-C, Urla Industrial Complex, Urla, Raipur (C.G.) are required to show cause to the Commissioner of Central Excise Raipur (herein after referred to as the Adjudicating Authority) having his office at Central Excise Building, A/B Block, 1^st Floor Tikrapara, Raipur within 30 days of the receipt of this notice as to why;

¶30

(a) Central Excise duty, amounting to Rs. 12,12,73,187/- (Rupees Twelve Crores, Twelve Lakhs, Seventy Three Thousands One Hundred and Eighty Seven only) inclusive of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education cess, leviable on clandestine clearance of 31187.310 MTs of rolled products, valued at Rs. 71,15,77,434/- as detailed in RUD-27 to this show cause notice, should not be demanded and recovered from them under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section -11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944

¶31

4

¶32

(b) Interest at the appropriate rate, on the above Central Excise duty determined to be payable under the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, should not be charged and recovered from them, under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

¶33

(c) Finished goods (i.e., 31187.310 MTs Rolled Product) valued at Rs. Rs. 12,12,73,187/- cleared by M/s Mahamaya Ispat without payment of duty, should not be confiscated under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, and as the said goods are not available for confiscation, so why the fine in lieu of confiscation, be not imposed on them under Section 34 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

¶34

(d) Penalty should not be imposed upon them, under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

¶35

(f) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002”

¶36

(iv) The said show cause notice was adjudicated by the learned Adjudicating Authority vide OIO No. RPR/EXCUS/000/COM/081/2017 dated 14/12/2017 (Annexure A/3) whereby the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 12,12,73,187/- along with interest and imposed equal amount of penalty on respondent No. 1 Firm and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- on respondent No. 2.

¶37

(v) Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents herein filed an appeal before the Tribunal and vide Final Order No. A/52165-52166/2018-EX(DB) dated 24/05/2018 (Annexure A-1), the Tribunal allowed the appeal on the ground that no detailed investigation has

¶38

5

¶39

been carried out against the appellant/respondent by the department other than the statement recorded against V.P. Goswami, Senior Manager, Sales and since the entire proceedings against M/s Devi Industries stands set aside, the case made against the appellant cannot be sustained only on the basis of confessional statement of Shri Goswami and the Tribunal further held that no tangible evidence has been gathered by the department for proving clandestine removal against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

¶40

4. Mr. Maneesh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that against the order dated 20/04/2018 passed by the Tribunal in the case of M/s Devi Iron and Power Pvt. Ltd., the appellant herein preferred Tax Case No. 153/2018 which has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 04/09/2025 and the order passed by the Tribunal against M/s Devi Iron and Power Pvt. Ltd. has been set aside and matter has been remitted to the Tribunal for considering their appeal afresh and deciding it in accordance with law, therefore, this appeal may also be allowed and the matter be remitted to the Tribunal for deciding it afresh in accordance with law.

¶41

5. Per contra, Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel for the respondents, would support the impugned order and

¶42

6

¶43

submit that the learned Tribunal is absolutely justified in setting aside the order of the Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶44

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and perused the records meticulously.

¶45

7. It is not in dispute that the order dated 20/04/2018 passed by the Tribunal in favour of M/s Devi Iron and Power Pvt. Ltd. has already been set aside by this Court in Tax Case No. 153/2018 vide order dated 04/09/2025 by holding as under :-

¶46

“12. In view of the aforesaid legal discussion and analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal, being the first Appellate Authority, ought to have recorded points for determination and after consideration and a detailed discussion on each of the points so framed, ought to have recorded its findings supported by reasons thereof, which has not been done. As such, the impugned order dated 20/04/2018 (Annexure A/1) is hereby set aside and the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellant and against the respondent Firm. Matter is remitted to the Tribunal for considering the appeal afresh on merits and to decide it in accordance with law after hearing the parties and considering the material available on record within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.”

¶47

8. Thus, since the order passed by the Tribunal in favour of M/s Devi Iron and Power Pvt. Ltd. has already been set

¶48

7

¶49

aside by this Court as noticed herein-above and since the impugned order is based on order passed by the Tribunal in the case of M/s Devi Iron and Power Pvt. Ltd., we also hereby set aside the impugned order dated 24/05/2018 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Tribunal and remit the matter to the Tribunal for considering the appeal afresh on merits and to decide it in accordance with law after hearing the parties and considering the material available on record within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

¶50

9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Tribunal for information and compliance.

¶51

Sd/Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge

¶52

Harneet

The Principal Commissioner Cgst and Central Excise v. M/S Mahamaya Ispat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Principal Commissioner Cgst and Central Excise v. M/S Mahamaya Ispat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

The Income Tax OFFICER-1(2) Vs M/S Gurunanak Rice Industries Arang Road

Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited, Vs Dcit Circle -1(1)

Sujeet Kumar Ram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The Principal Commissioner Central Tax and Central Excise Vs M/S Devi Iron and Power Pvt. Ltd.

Smt. Neetu Sharma Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax

Rajkumar Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh