Cgit-1 Delhi order dated 13.10.2025 Appeal No.D-1/39/2025 M/s R.N. Industries vs RPFC on 13 October 2025

1. Respondent has placed on record the office note dated 10.10.2025 wherein it was mentioned that as per direction of this Tribunal, AEO was deputed on 09.10.2025 to make inquiry and he has submitted report in the matter.

2. AEO in his report has mentioned that establishment vide its letter dated 29.05.2024 submitted in the 7A proceeding admitted in point no. 4(i) that however two employees Jai Prakash & Ghanshyam Rajak were not enrolled as EPF member. Establishment is ready to deposit the EPF and allied dues in respect of both employees. Total payable dues in respect of Sh. Kuldeep & Manish Kumarare Rs. 1,97,360/- (the amount is not assessed in 7A order).

3. Record reveals that this appeal was filed on 12.09.2025 and has come up for hearing first time on 17.09.2025. The appeal was against the demand notice dated 22.07.2025 where appellant was asked to pay the Rs. 5,56,986/- which was assessed by the respondent vide an order dated 14.06.2024. Though, this Tribunal is conscious of the fact that an appeal u/s 7-I of the Act is not maintainable against the recovery notice, yet considering the circumstances, where appellant has suffered unnecessarily considering his plea that he had deposited the entire amount assessed u/s 7A of the period of which assessment was done in the year 2024 itself, appeal was admitted for hearing. This appeal was further listed on 25.09.2025. On 25.09.2025, the respondent was directed to verify form the record whether any dues remained paid in respect of the employees Kuldeep & Manish Kumar in whose favour the amount was deposited inadvertently instead of Jai Prakash & Ghanshyam Rajak.

4. In this background, this note has been submitted by department/respondent department, wherein AEO was deputed to submit the report and he has enquired from the respondent.

5. Before proceeding further, notice of demand dated 22.07.2025 is required to be reproduced and pasted herein:

6. It is important to mention here that appellant has made representation against the recovery notice on 31.07.2025, however, no reply has been given to the appellant whether he has deposited the amount inadvertently in the name of Kuldeep & Manish Kumar instead of Jai Prakash & Ghanshyam Rajak against whom the order has been passed. If it has been so, then the department shall have given the reply, narrating all the facts but, it has chosen to remain silent and harass the appellant regularly by calling him. In its very first order, this Tribunal has stated that fact of filing of appeal itself demonstrates that the appellant has been harassed otherwise there is no reason to file the appeal unnecessarily.

7. The report submitted to this Tribunal reveals that two employees Sh. Jai Prakash & Ghanshyam Rajak were not enrolled as

EPF member and the establishment was ready to deposit the EPF dues. He has also determined the dues in respect of Kuldeep & Manish Kumar. The order passed U/s 7A dated 14.06.2024 speaks only in respect of employee Ghanshyam Rajak & Jai Prakash assessed to the amount of Rs. 1,97,360/-, order further speaks in respect of the employee Ved Prakash, Sajid Saifi and Avinash Kumar Pandey and assessed the PF liability to the tune of Rs. 2,16,000/-, order further speaks in respect of the employee Sh. Sushil Kumar Mandal. Except this, no order has been passed in respect of any employee. However, the deposit has been made in respect of six employees by the appellant namely Avinash Kumar Pandey, Sajid Saifi, Ved Prakash, Sushil Kumar Mandal, Manish Kumar & Kuldeep. Assessment has not been done in respect of the Kuldeep & Manish Kumar though the contribution has been deposited by the appellant inadvertently.

8. When the assessment has not been in respect of Kuldeep & Manish Kumar then the respondent cannot say that it has enrolled the employee of its own. If that case may be then he should have informed the appellant, but, he has chosen to remain silent.

9. The above facts reflect the highhandedness of the respondent departmentin harassing the appellant by asking it to deposit the amount as mentioned in the recovery certificate. In these circumstances, by exercising the power under Rule 21 of the Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997, respondent is directed to transfer the amount deposited in the name of Kuldeep & Manish Kumar to the account of Ghanshyam Rajak & Jai Prakash within two weeks. If he has found any information in regard to Kuldeep & Manish Kumar then, he shall initiate the fresh inquiry and the appellant be given enough time to defend. With this, appeal stands disposed of. A copy of this order along with the order dated 25.09.2025 is sent to the CPFC for information and necessary action.

Sd/-

Date: 13.10.2025

Atul Kumar Garg (Presiding Officer)