Anurag Dalmia vs. Additional Director General (Adj)
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, Mr. Anurag Dalmia, Vice-Chairman of Golden Tobacco Limited (GTL), filed four writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence. These orders stemmed from adjudication proceedings initiated in 1995 against M/s. M.P. Tobacco Limited (MPTL), a franchisee controlled by GTL, for alleged evasion of excise duty through clandestine removal of tobacco products. Show Cause Notices were issued to the Petitioner, and Orders-in-Original were passed. The matter had been remanded multiple times by the Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) between 2002 and 2014. The impugned orders were passed in late 2024 and early 2025. The Petitioner contended violations of natural justice but was willing to withdraw the petitions to pursue appellate remedies before the CESTAT, as the impugned orders were appealable.
Held
The Court held that the Petitioner should be permitted to approach the CESTAT within a period of two months, i.e., by January 20, 2026, along with the requisite pre-deposit. The reasoning was based on the fact that the writ petitions had been pending before the High Court since March 2025. If the pre-deposit was made by the stipulated date and the appeals were filed before the CESTAT, these appeals would not be dismissed on the ground of limitation and would be adjudicated on their merits. The Court explicitly stated that it had not considered the merits of the contentions raised by either side, leaving all such contentions open for both parties. The operative direction was to allow the Petitioner to file appeals beyond the limitation period under specific conditions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner, having filed writ petitions challenging appealable orders, should be permitted to withdraw these petitions to avail of appellate remedies before the CESTAT, despite the limitation period for filing appeals having lapsed? Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner argued that the impugned orders were appealable and that they were willing to withdraw the writ petitions to pursue their appellate remedies before the CESTAT under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. They sought permission to file these appeals, acknowledging that the limitation period had expired. Revenue's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the Revenue regarding the Petitioner's request to withdraw and file appeals beyond the limitation period. The Revenue was represented, but their contentions on this specific procedural aspect are not detailed.
Sections Cited
Section 35B, Central Excise Act, 1944
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (3 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/11/2025 at 11:57:48 AND + W.P.(C) 16325/2025 ANURAG DALMIA .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Sujatha N. Shirolkar, Adv. versus ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL (ADJUDICATION) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC, Mr. Dipak Raj, Mr. Shashank Kr., Ms. Priyatanu Bhardwaj, Advs CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE O R D E R % 20.11.2025
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
These are four Petitions filed by the Petitioner-Mr. Anurag Dalmia under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India,who was the Vice- Chairman of Golden Tobacco Limited (hereinafter, ‘GTL’).
The brief background of the present cases is that adjudication proceedings had commenced against the Petitioner in the year 1995. The allegation was that the Company i.e.,M/s. M.P. Tobacco Limited (hereinafter, ‘MPTL’)had indulged in evasion of excise through clandestine removal of various Tobacco products.MPTL is stated to be a franchisee of M/s. GTL Industries and was controlled by the said M/s. GTL Industries only. During the course of proceedings, various Show Cause Notices (hereinafter, ‘SCNs’) were issued to the Petitioner.
Thereafter, the said SCNs were adjudicated and the Orders-in- This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/11/2025 at 11:57:48 Original (hereinafter, ‘OIOs’) were passed by the Department. Various challenges were raised at different stages by the Petitioner, finally, the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authorityvide orders dated 01st December, 2014 inW.P.(C) 4454/2025,13th March, 2002 and 19th December, 2002 in W.P.(C) 8301/2025, 6th March, 2014 in W.P.(C) 9017/2025 and25th November, 2014 inW.P.(C) 16325/2025by the Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, ‘CESTAT’).
The impugned orders have now been passed by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence on 12th December, 2024 in W.P.(C) 4454/2025, on 28th February, 2025 in W.P.(C) 8301/2025, on 29th January, 2025 in W.P.(C) 9017/2025 and on 28th March, 2025 inW.P.(C) 16325/2025which areappealable orders.
The present petitions raised various contentions in respect of violation of principles of natural justice, however, since the impugned orders are appealable, the Petitioner is willing to withdraw the present petitions to avail of his appellate remedies under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to the CESTAT.
The limitation for filing the appeals has, however, lapsed. Considering the fact that these writ petitions have been pending before this Court since March, 2025, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitionerdeserves to be permitted to approach the CESTAT within a period of two months i.e., by 20th January, 2026 along with the requisite pre-deposit.
If the said pre-deposit is made by 20th January, 2026, and the appeals are filed before the CESTAT by the Petitioner, the said appeals would not be dismissed on the ground of limitation and shall be adjudicated on merits.
Needless to add, this Court has not considered the merits of the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/11/2025 at 11:57:48 contentions raised by either side. As such, all contentions are left open for both the parties.
The petitions, along with pending application(s), if any, are disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J SAURABH BANERJEE, J NOVEMBER 20, 2025/tg/ck This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/11/2025 at 11:57:48
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.