2015 (9) TMI 1143 - AT - Central Excise

Imposition of penalty - Job worker - Held that - Tribunal in similar matter has already set aside the very same impugned order and set aside the demand and penalty against M/s.Global Repackers, the principal manufacturer 2006 (7) TMI 432 - CESTAT, CHENNAI - In view of the factual position that the Tribunal has set aside the order & demand and penalty on the main appellant, the imposition of penalty on the co-noticee is liable to be set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved: Imposition of penalty on the appellant as a co-noticee in the impugned order under Rule 209A of CER.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with the imposition of a penalty on the appellant, who was a co-noticee in the impugned order. The appellant, a job worker for the principal manufacturer, was penalized along with other parties. However, a previous Tribunal order had set aside the demand and penalty against the principal manufacturer, rendering the penalty on the co-noticee unjustified. The Tribunal found that the duty liability fixed on the appellant was beyond the scope of the show-cause notice, which had originally demanded duty from another party. The Tribunal also highlighted discrepancies in the lower authority's findings regarding the duty liability and valuation of goods. It was noted that circulars issued by the Ministry clarified the duty liability on repacking goods, and the appellant should benefit from the circular applicable during the disputed period. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty imposed on the co-noticee was untenable in light of the main appellant's penalty being set aside, and therefore, the penalty on the co-noticee was also set aside. The appeal was allowed based on these grounds, providing consequential reliefs to the appellant.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal aspects considered by the Tribunal in reaching its decision regarding the imposition of the penalty on the appellant as a co-noticee in the impugned order.