Gujarat High Court
Commissioner, Central Gst And Central ... vs Pareshbhai Ramabhai Amin on 14 November, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/TAXAP/505/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/TAX APPEAL NO. 505 of 2024
==========================================================
COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE AND ST,
VADODARA I
Versus
PARESHBHAI RAMABHAI AMIN
==========================================================
Appearance:
DEEPAK N KHANCHANDANI(7781) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 14/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. By way of present appeal, the appellant is challenging the judgment and order dated 31.10.2023 in Excise Appeal No. 10341 of 2015 - DB passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Deepak N. Khanchandani appearing for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal is required to be quashed and set aside, in view of the confessional statement of the respondent who was manufacturing the tobacco i.e. notified goods "Pan masala containing tobacco" falling under tariff item no. 2403 99 90, known as "Gutkha" and duplicates of leading brands under names of "Vimal", "Rajkolapuri", "Gomti", were being manufactured in the said godown and huge quantities of various brands, raw materials / packing materials required to manufacture such "Gutkha" were found lying in the premises.
2.1 It is submitted that the machinaries and goods valued to Rs. 15,53,700/-, were seized under the panchnama dated 19.09.2013, drawn in the presence of two independent panchas and in the presence of Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by Radhika Srinivasan(HCD0042) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 22:57:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/TAXAP/505/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined Shri Purshottambhai Chhotabhai Patel, owner of the said premises and Shri Pareshbahi Ramanbhai Amin at the premises of M/s Laxmi Tobacco Company, Vasna, Khedra Road, Borsad. It is submitted that the machines were the most vital evidence of the illegal manufacturing activity of the notified goods (gutkha). It is submitted that these vital facts were ignored by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent challenging the Order in Original dated 30.09.2014, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Vadodara and by ordering recovery of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 4.32 Crores, in two equal proportion and divide it between the respondent Shri Pareshbhai Ramanbhai Amin with Shri Ashwin Purshottambhai Patel for the duty liability of Rs. 2.16 crores with interest under Section 11 AA of the Central Excise Act and imposed penalty of Rs. 2.16 crores each under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act.
2.2 It is submitted that detailed investigation was undertaken, however, the tribunal has set aside the Order in Original only for the reason that no opportunity of cross-examination was granted to the panch witnesses, though sought by the respondent. It is submitted that the respondent himself has confessed that he was manufacturing the tobacco in the godown and hence there was no need to give opportunity of cross- examination to the panch witness as well as the co-notices, even if their statement is relied upon.
2.3 Learned advocate for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the Kerala High Court in case of N.S. Mahesh V. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin reported in 2016(331) E.L.T 402 (Ker.).
3. We have perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the order and tribunal and when a specific query was raised, learned advocate Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by Radhika Srinivasan(HCD0042) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 22:57:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/TAXAP/505/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined Mr. Khanchandani appearing on behalf of the appellant as to whether the panch witnesses were allowed to be cross-examined, he has candidly said that they were not allowed. We have also noticed that though reliance has been placed by the authority on the statements of the co-notices, no opportunity of cross-examination has been extended to the petitioner, even though has requested. This fact has not been disputed by the appellant. We have also noticed that the Commissioner in the order dated 30.09.2014, has specifically recorded this aspect and has rejected the cross-examinations of the persons whose statements were relied upon, simply on the reasons that the statements of the persons are simply corroborative to the facts already stated by the respondent. In our considered opinion, the approach of the adjudicating authorities is illegal and against the fair adjudication of the dispute. Once the authorities has placed reliance upon the statements of the panchas as well as the co notices, the opportunity to cross-examine is mandatory and failing which the same would be detrimental to the order passed by the adjudicating authorities. The tribunal while examining the Order in Original dated 30.09.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Vadodara has categorically held as under:
"6.1 We find that during the investigation, statements of Paresh R Amin, Purshottambhai C Patel and Ashwin Purshottam Patel have been recorded. These Statements show that partnership between Shri Paresh R Amin, and Shri Ashwin Purshottam Patel was created for illicit manufacture of Gutkha at Godown No. 3 in the prenises of M/s Laxmi Tobacco Company, 2 Machines were brought by Shri Ashwin Patel, Purchase of inputs and sale of final products was on cash basis, Notified goods manufactured were cleared under Invoices of Laxmi Tobacco Co and transported out of said premises in vehicles of Laxmi Tobacco Co under the bags of Tobacco. However, no such written agreement of partnership is found or produced by anyone. No evidence of rent paid by Paresh Amin or received by Purshottam C Patel from Paresh Amin or Ashwin Patel for rent of Godown No. 3 is found or produced by anyone, where two PPM and goods are found. Shri Paresh Amin has contended in retraction letter dated 01.11.2013 that he was called in the factory by Shri Purshottambhai C Patel during search on 19.09.2013 and that he has been falsely implicated in the case. We find that adjudicating authority has not taken statements on record in terms of section 9D of Central Excise Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by Radhika Srinivasan(HCD0042) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 22:57:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/TAXAP/505/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined Act 1944 and not allowed cross examination of Panch Witnesses, Purshottambhai C Patel and Ashwin P Patel, sought on behalf of Appellant Shri Paresh R Amin, by his advocate. Therefore, these statements relied upon against Shri Paresh Amin needs to be excluded from the can of evidences, as per decisions relied upon by Paresh Amin in reply to show cause notice and decision of Apex Court in Andaman Timber Industries 2015 (324) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.). Appellant has relied decision of Apex Court in cases of Swadeshi Polytex Limited vs. Collector 2000 (122) ELT-641 (S.C.) and Lakshman Exports Limited v. CCE - 2002 (143) ELT 21 (S.C.) for the proposition that whenever any statement is relied upon, opportunity to cross-examine maker of statement be given. Decision in J & K Cigarettes Limited v. CCE in 2011 ( 22) STR 225 (Del.) is also relief upon by Paresh Amin in reply to show cause notice."
4. We are in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal, as there was no tangible evidence or any corroborative evidence against the respondent to connect him with the manufacture of gutkha. No independent corroborative evidence has been produced and in wake of the fact that the vital witnesses whose statements are relied upon, more particularly, the pancha witnesses and the co-notices were not offered an opportunity of cross-examination despite a specific request made by the petitioner. We do not find any illegality of infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Moreover, reliance placed by the appellant in the case of N.S Mahesh (supra) would not come to the rescue of the appellant in wake of the fact that the opportunity of being cross-examined was not afforded to the panchas and co-notices, more particularly when their statements have been relied upon while passing the Order in Original.
5. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal fails the same stands rejected.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) (PRANAV TRIVEDI,J) Radhika / 37 Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by Radhika Srinivasan(HCD0042) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 22:57:58 IST 2025