Ashok Kumar Verma vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, Delhi North Commissionerate

Facts

The Petitioner, Ashok Kumar Verma, filed a writ petition challenging a Show Cause Notice dated February 5, 2021, and an Order-in-Original dated August 8, 2024, passed by the Principal Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Delhi North Commissionerate. The impugned order imposed a penalty of Rs. 49,98,57,742/- on the Petitioner. The Petitioner's case is that he was merely an employee of the actual manufacturer of "Aryan Gutkha" and was not the owner-cum-partner of an illegal and unregistered manufacturing unit as alleged. He contends that the Respondent intends to implicate only him and not the actual manufacturer. The Petitioner also stated he lacks the financial capacity to make the pre-deposit required for filing an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.

Held

The Court held that the impugned Order-in-Original is clearly an appealable order under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The pleas raised by the Petitioner, including his contention of being a mere employee and lacking financial capacity for pre-deposit, are matters that should be raised before the Appellate Tribunal. The Court directed that the Appellate Tribunal shall consider the Petitioner's application for waiver of pre-deposit, if made, in accordance with the law. All remedies available to the Petitioner were left open. The Court did not decide on the merits of the Petitioner's claims regarding his role in the manufacturing unit or the alleged inaction against the actual manufacturer.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner's plea that he was merely an employee and not the owner-cum-partner of an alleged illegal manufacturing unit, and that the Respondent failed to take action against the actual manufacturer, can be considered by this Court in a writ petition, or if it is a matter for the Appellate Tribunal? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that he was only an employee and not the owner-cum-partner of the alleged illegal manufacturing unit. He further contended that the Respondent's actions indicate an intention to implicate him solely, while neglecting to take action against the true manufacturer. Crucially, the Petitioner asserted that he lacks the financial wherewithal to meet the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for filing an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. Respondent's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Respondent. However, the existence of the impugned Order-in-Original implies the Respondent's position was that the Petitioner was liable for the penalty.