9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 135 - AT - CustomsJurisdiction of authority - section 127F(2) of the CA, 1962 - where the applications have been seized by the Settlement Commission, any other Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter relating to the said application - whether the appellant can be absolved from all liabilities for the reason that the main party M/s Sri Kumar Utensils Pvt.Ltd has settled the case before the Settlement Commission? - decision in the case of S.K. Colombowala Vs CCE, 2007 (7) TMI 514 - CESTAT, MUMBAI , where the specific question that was considered was whether the appellant who had not filed an application before the Settlement Commission can claim immunity from further proceedings on the ground that the main case has been settled before the Settlement Commission. Held that - The decision in the case of Motilal Gupta 2016 (5) TMI 608 - CESTAT MUMBAI relied by the Ld AR is one rendered by the single member bench of the Tribunal, where it was held that if the liability of the co-noticees arise from different act they will not get immunity from further proceeding. In the said case, the Tribunal in para 4.7 as well as 4.8 has given reasons for taking a different view from that laid in the case of SK Colombowala. The said view may be applicable to the facts of that case and I am not able to agree to the view expressed in the said paragraphs by the Ld. Single Member and more specifically because the issue stands covered squarely by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. I hold that the appellant are entitled to be absolved from the liabilities for the reasons that the main case has been settled before the Settlement Commission. In the result, the impugned orders are set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.
Issues:
1. Whether the appellants can be absolved from liabilities due to the settlement of the main case before the Settlement Commission. Analysis: The appellants, Shri Anil Goyal and Shri Ranjit S. Choudhari, were co-noticees in a case settled by M/s Sree Kumar Utensils Pvt. Ltd before the Settlement Commission. The main issue was whether the appellants could claim immunity from further proceedings since the main case had been settled. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants cited the S.K. Colombowala case, arguing that liabilities against the appellants should be considered concluded. On the other hand, the Ld. AR contended that co-noticees cannot be absolved from liability solely because the main case was settled. The Ld. AR referred to the Motilal Gupta case to support the argument that co-noticees may still be liable even if the main applicant settles before the Settlement Commission. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides. The primary issue addressed was whether the appellants could be absolved from all liabilities based on the settlement of the main case before the Settlement Commission. The Tribunal referred to the S.K. Colombowala case, emphasizing that the scheme of settlement implies complete settlement of a case for all parties involved once an application is admitted and settled. The Tribunal highlighted that the provisions of the law indicate the legislature's intention for a comprehensive settlement of the case for all parties concerned. The Tribunal also noted that the decision in the S.K. Colombowala case was supported by the HIM Logistics Pvt. Ltd case and a reference to the Larger Bench in the Rajesh case. Additionally, the Tribunal distinguished the Motilal Gupta case, which took a different view, as it was decided by a single member bench and did not align with the precedent set by the Larger Bench. Ultimately, following the proposition established by the Larger Bench, the Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to be absolved from liabilities due to the settlement of the main case before the Settlement Commission. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any consequential reliefs. This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT HYDERABAD underscores the legal complexities and considerations involved in determining the liabilities of co-noticees in cases settled before the Settlement Commission.
|
