Case Details: Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat-II vs. S.M. Pareek (2026) 39 Centax 392 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- J.B. Pardiwala & R. Mahadevan, JJ.
- S/Shri N Venkataraman, A.S.G., Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, Arijit Prasad, B Sunita Rao, Udai Khanna, Sarthak Karol, Neelakshi Bhaduria & V.C. Bharathi, Advs. for the Appellant.
- S/Shri Chetan Joshi, Adv., Prithvi Pal, AOR, For the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
An adjudication order under the Central Excise Act, 1944 confirmed duty and penalty against the assessee-company and also imposed personal penalties on the Director and Manager under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Appeals were filed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), which examined the merits of the matter and upheld the order of the adjudicating authority confirming duty and penalty on the company. However, while dealing with the personal liability of the Director and Manager, the CESTAT reduced the penalties imposed on them under Rule 209A after considering mitigating circumstances. The department challenged the order before the Gujarat High Court contending that the decision of the CESTAT was non-speaking since reasons for reducing the penalties had not been recorded. The Gujarat High Court rejected the challenge and held that the Rules or administrative instructions did not require the CESTAT to record reasons while imposing or reducing penalties and therefore the reduction of penalties could not be said to be unjustified. Aggrieved by the said decision, the department preferred appeals before the Supreme Court of India. The matter was accordingly placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the tax liability involved in the appeals filed against the impugned order of the Gujarat High Court was below the monetary threshold prescribed by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) for filing appeals before the Supreme Court. The Court observed that the monetary limit prescribed by the CBIC for filing such appeals was ₹2 crore and the tax effect in the present case was below the said threshold. It was therefore held that the appeals were liable to be disposed of on the ground of low tax effect. The Court accordingly disposed of the appeals while leaving the question of law open.
