Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax vs. Sh Sanjiv Kumar, Manager, M/S Prabhat Zarda Factory Overseas

Held

The Court held that there were no good grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal had found that the respondent, Shri Sanjiv Kumar, had generally exercised supervisory functions but had not dealt with the goods. This finding was recorded after consideration of the evidence on record. The Court reasoned that merely because one view has been taken by the Tribunal, it does not provide sufficient grounds for the High Court to interfere with such findings in an appeal on a substantial question of law. Since it was not shown that the Tribunal's view was against the weight of evidence or perverse, the appeal was found to have no merit. The Court dismissed the appeal.

Facts

The revenue, Commissioner of CGST, Noida, filed a defective Central Excise Appeal against an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad. The CESTAT, by its order dated August 6, 2025, had deleted the personal penalty imposed on the respondent, Shri Sanjiv Kumar, Manager of M/S Prabhat Zarda Factory Overseas. The penalty was imposed under Rule 29 of the Central Excise Rules, 2017. The revenue's appeal was filed with a delay of 2 days, which was condoned by the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal erred in setting aside the personal penalty imposed on persons involved in committing the offence of tax evasion, categorically explained and linked with the facts in the Order in Original, under Rule 29 of the Central Excise Rules, 2017? The revenue argued that the Tribunal erred in setting aside the personal penalty imposed on the respondent for tax evasion. The revenue contended that the respondent was involved in committing the offence of tax evasion, as explained and linked with the facts in the Order in Original. The revenue relied on Rule 29 of the Central Excise Rules, 2017. The respondent did not record any arguments in the judgment.