Allahabad High Court
COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GOODS & SERVICES TAXversusM/S MAHARASHTRA FREIGHT CARRIERS PVT. LTD.
- Decided
Holding
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, holding that the transporter was not liable for the penalty due to lack of evidence of knowledge.
Summary
The Commissioner of Central GST appealed against the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order that deleted a personal penalty imposed on M/s Maharashtra Freight Carriers under Rule 29 of the Central Excise Rules, 2017. The appeal raised the question of whether the Tribunal erred in setting aside the penalty for alleged involvement in tax evasion. The High Court noted that the respondent was merely a transporter acting as a bailee and that the revenue failed to produce evidence of the transporter’s knowledge of the evasion. Consequently, the Court found no ground to interfere with the Tribunal's decision. The appeal was dismissed, and the application for condonation of a two‑day delay in filing the appeal was allowed. No costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether the Tribunal erred in setting aside the personal penalty imposed under Rule 29 of the Central Excise Rules, 2017.
- Whether a transporter acting as a bailee can be held personally liable for tax evasion without proof of knowledge.
Legislation cited
- Central Excise Rules, 2017 — s. Rule 29
Subjects
- tax evasion
- personal penalty
- transporter liability
- bailee
- Central Excise Rules
- Rule 29
- delay condonation
- CGST
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 11 of 2026
Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
M/S Maharashtra Freight Carriers Pvt. Ltd.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Bijendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) :
Court No. - 3
HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J.
1. Heard Sri B.K.S. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the revenue and
perused the record.
Re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 01 of 2026
2. Present appeal has been filed with a delay of 2 days.
3. Cause shown is sufficient. Delay in filing the present appeal is condoned.
Delay condonation application is allowed.
Order on Appeal
4. The present appeal has been filed against the order of the Customs, Excise
and Service Tax Appellant Tribunal, Allahabad dated 06.08.2025 in Excise
Appeal No. 70639 of 2025 (M/s Maharashtra Freight Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Commissioner of CGST, Noida). By that order, the Tribunal has deleted the
penalty imposed by the opposite party under Rule 29 of the Central Excise
Rules, 2017.
5. The appeal has been pressed on the following question of law :
"(iii) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal erred in setting aside the personal
penalty imposed on persons involved in committing the offence of tax
CEXAD No. 11 of 2026
2
evasion, categorically explained and linked with the facts in the Order in
Original, under Rule 29 of the Central Excise Rules, 2017 ?"
6. Having heard learned counsel for the revenue and having perused the
record, we find no good ground to interfere in the present appeal inasmuch
as the noticee was only a transporter who had transported the goods. That
transportation being by a bailee that too in his capacity as transporter, the
Tribunal has found that no evidence was led by the revenue to establish
subject knowledge of the transporter that the offending goods have been
transported to evade tax.
7. The present appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as
to costs.
(Vivek Saran,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)
March 19, 2026
Abhilash
Digitally signed by :-
ABHILASH SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…