"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 10 of 2026 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 peruse 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. 70640 of 2025 (Shri Sanjiv Kumar, Manager 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 evasion, categorically explained and linked with the facts in the Order in Original, under Rule 29 of the Central Excise Rules, 2017 ?\" Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Bijendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax .....Appellant(s) Sh Sanjiv Kumar, Manager, M/S Prabhat Zarda Factory Overseas .....Respondent(s) Printed from counselvise.com 6. Having heard learned counsel for the revenue and having perused the record, we find no good ground to interfere in the present appeal. The findings recorded by the Tribunal is to the effect that the opposite party Sri Sanjiv Kumar had generally exercised supervisory functions but had not dealt with the goods. Such finding as stands recorded after consideration of evidence on record. Merely because one view has been taken, it may not be enough to allow the High Court to offer any interference with such findings, in this appeal on a substantial question of law. 7. To the extent it has not been shown that the view taken by the Tribunal is against the weight of evidence or that is perverse, we find no merit in the present appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. March 19, 2026 Abhilash CEXAD No. 10 of 2026 2 (Vivek Saran,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) Printed from counselvise.com Digitally signed by :- ABHILASH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad "