- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24361-DB RP No. 506 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA REVIEW PETITION NO. 506 OF 2024 BETWEEN: M/S.PATANJALI FOODS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD.) RUCHI HOUSE, SURVEY NO.169, ROYAL PALMS, AAREY COLONY, GOREGAON (EAST), MUMBAI-400065 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SHRI. T. GAJENDRA, DEPUTY MANAGER - LEGAL …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJESH RAWAL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY K P, ADVOCATE) AND: COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX 7TH FLOOR, TRADE CENTRE, BUNTS HOSTEL ROAD, MANGALORE-575003 …RESPONDENT THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF THE CPC FOR REVIEW OF THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.09.2024, PASSED IN CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.6/2024,(EXCISE), PASSED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.09.2024 IN CEA 6/2024 TO THE Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24361-DB RP No. 506 of 2024 EXTENT OF HOLDING THAT THE IMPUGNED DEMAND(S) RAISED AGAINST THE APPELLANT VIDE ORDER IN ORIGINAL DATED 02.11.2012 VIZ. CONFIRMED DEMAND OF EXCISE DUTY OF RS.8,06,44,997/- WITH INTEREST AND THAT OF PENALTY IMPOSED ON THE APPELLANT OF RS.8,06,44,997/- UNDER SECTION 11AC OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944, HAVE ABATED AND HAVE STOOD EXTINGUISHED AND FURTHER THAT THE APPELLANT WILL BE ENTITLED TO REFUND OF RS.2,97,29,891/- AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.POONACHA) The present review petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081 to review the order dated 30.9.2024 passed in CEA No.6/2024, whereunder this Court allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and passed the following order: “23. In view of the aforementioned, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The Final Order No.21234/2023 passed in Excise Appeal No.25387/2013 dated 9.11.2023 by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, is set aside. 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24361-DB RP No. 506 of 2024 (iii) The Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee before the CESTAT are allowed and it is held that the demand of `5,09,15,106/- made by the revenue against the assessee pursuant to the Order-in-Original passed on 2.11.2012 and issued on 8.11.2012 has abated and has stood extinguished.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Rajesh Rawal, urges the following grounds: 2.1. That while allowing the appeal this Court has held that the demand of `5,09,15,106/- has stood extinguished and has not set aside the interest and penalty levied pursuant to the said demand; 2.2. That this Court, although accepted the proposition of law that is put forth on behalf of the petitioner/appellant, has allowed the appeal only insofar as the demand of `5,09,15,106/- and not the original demand of `8,06,44,997/- made vide show cause notice dated 26.3.2012. In that behalf, it is sought to be contended that the petitioner/appellant having deposited the sum of `2,97,29,891/-, is entitled for refund of the said amount. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24361-DB RP No. 506 of 2024 3. The contentions put forth have been considered and the material on record has been perused. 4. The first contention that is sought to be urged in the present review petition is misconceived since admittedly, even as on date, the petitioner has not received any notice from the authorities claiming interest or penalty in respect of the demand of `5,09,15,106/-. Hence, the question of passing any orders in that regard does not arise. 5. With regard to the second contention, it is pertinent to note that it was the specific contention put forth on behalf of the revenue in the appeal that even if the contention of the petitioner that was put forth in the appeal was liable to be accepted, the revenue is not liable to refund the amount of `2,97,29,891/-, which was deposited by the petitioner/appellant. The said contention has been noticed at para 8 and has specifically been considered at para 17 of the judgment dated 30.9.2024, which is under review. Hence, it is clear that the second contention put forth on behalf of the petitioner is an attempt to re-argue the main appeal on its - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24361-DB RP No. 506 of 2024 merits, which is beyond the scope of the present review petition. 6. In view of the aforementioned, the above review petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9