SHRI HIMANSHU GUPTA vs THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

Judgment text excerpt

$~91 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 15th January, 2026 + CEAC NO. 48/2018 SHRI HIMANSHU GUPTA D-21, MODEL TOWN, PART-II, DELHI-110009 .....APPELLANT Through: Mr. Prem Ranjan Kumar, Advocate (through VC) Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, C.R. BUILDING, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002. ....RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Jatin Kumar Gaur, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT (ORAL) NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J. 1. Heard. 2. This appeal is under Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944 questioning the legality and sustainability of the final order dated 16th January, 2018 passed by the Custom, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter shall be referred to as the ‘CESTAT’). Signature Not Verified Signed By:AKASH YADAV Signing Date:23.02.2026 CEAC No.48/2018 Page 1 of 22 15:48:59 3. One Mr. Chander Kumar Gupta had a son namely Mr. Himanshu Gupta, who is the appellant to the present appeal. Mr. Chander Kumar Gupta was Director of M/s M.R. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘M/s MRTPL’) and was blessed with three daughters also, namely, Ms. Tripti, Ms. Mahek and Ms. Shraddha, who are married. 4. Alleging that M/s MRTPL was setup jointly by Mr. C.K. Gupta, former Director of M/s MRTPL with Mr. A.K. Gupta in the year 1988, the Central Excise Registration for their factory located at Samaypur Badli, Delhi, for manufacturing of Gutkha. It is claimed that manufacturing of Gutkha was stopped for domestic market for want of demand in February, 2008 and the machines were accordingly sealed by the department. However, to continue with the export activities, M/s MRTPL sought permission to open the seal and operate the said ma