Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Sayona Crop Care vs Vadodara-Ii on 25 February, 2026
1|Page
Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
REGIONAL BENCH- COURT NO. 02
Excise Appeal No. 10384 of 2023
[Arising Out Of OIO No. VAD-EXCUS-002-COM-11-22-23 Dated-03/02/2023 passed by the
Commissioner, Cenntral GST & Central Excise Vadoeara-II)
SAYONA CROP CARE .....Appellant
Formarly Known As Agro Pack Plot No. B/155
Gidc Industrial Esstate, Akaleshwar-393001
VERSUS
C.C.E. & S.T.-VADODARA-II .....Respondent
1st Floor Room No 101, New Central Excise Building, Vadodara, Gujarat-390023 WITH Excise Appeal No. 10385 of 2023 ( TUSHAR RAJNIKANT PATEL) Excise Appeal No. 10386 of 2023 ( HARISHBHAI M PATEL) Excise Appeal No. 10387 of 2023 ( BIPINBHAI M PATEL) [Arising Out Of OIO No. VAD-EXCUS-002-COM-11-22-23 Dated-03/02/2023 passed by the Commissioner, Cenntral GST & Central Excise Vadoeara-II) APPEARANCE:
Shri. Vinay Kansara, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. Himanshu Nachane, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SOMESH ARORA, MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) Final Order No. 10155-10158/2026 DATE OF HEARING:25.02.2026 DATE OF DECISION:25.02.2026 SOMESH ARORA In the instant case, the matter was remanded for reworking demand and considering Cenvat Credit allowable after providing calculation to the party. Though, the demands have been considerably reduced with penalty and one demand of Rs.15,89,874/- of Cenvat Credit in the instance with penalty and penalty of Rs. 4,75,860/- only surviving at this stage. The same is contested by the appellants on the ground that sustaining the demand of 15,89,874/- being the credit inadmissible to them does not consider SAD
2|Page E/10384-10385/2023-SM and various CESS as per the decision given by this Court in the matter of M/s AGRO PACK Vide Final Order No. A/11095/2016 dated 06.10.2016 though delivered in their own case.
2. On being asked, Learned AR informed, the same is not cited before the lower authority for whatever reason.
2.1 In view of this fact, the applicability of the decision and amount of SAD and CESS involved needs to be remanded to check if any Cenvat Credit is still not allowable.
3. As far as the levy of Rs. 4,75,860/- of penalty of is concerned, the appellant is on record stating that, of their own volition, they paid the amount as and when same was pointed out. He also relies on the decision of Indian Farmers Fertilisers Co.Op Ltd. Vs. C.C.E, Ahmedabad as reported in 2013 (287) ELT 467 (Tri.-Ahmd.).
3.1 In view of the foregoing, it is clear that the penalty as above of Rs. 4,75,860/- is unsustainable. The appellant have paid the duty at the earliest and also in view of the applicability of the decision quoted by the advocate for the appellant of IFFCO. In view of the same Penalty of Rs. 4,75,860 is set aside. Also the penalty imposed on the particular individuals which was initially imposed and as the same has been sustained as such when the Cenvat Credit disallowable was running into about Rs. 34 cores needs to be reconsidered to check whether any Cenvat Credit demand still survives or not. Though there is case made out for considerable reduction of penalty for the lesser quantum, but whether such penalty will ultimately survive will need to be decided by the Commissioner as adjudication.
4. On these two points, the matter is remanded. Appeal allowed partly on the point of penalty of Rs. 4,75,860/- and remanded to the adjudicating authority on other issues.
5. Appeal partly allowed.
(Dictated & Pronounced in the open court) (SOMESH ARORA) MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) Prachi