2017 (2) TMI 612 - AT - Central Excise

Imposition of penalty - Whether the proceedings against the co-noticees can be considered as concluded, when the matter has been settled by the main noticee before the Settlement Commission? Held that - the proceeding against the co-noticees come to an end when the main noticee has settled the matter before the Settlement Commission - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Consideration of proceedings against co-noticees when the main noticee settles with Settlement Commission.

Analysis:
The appeals involved in this case were filed by co-noticees against the penalty imposed, with the main appellants having settled their matter before the Settlement Commission. The main legal issue was whether the proceedings against co-noticees should be considered concluded in such circumstances. The appellant's counsel argued that once the main appellants settled with the Settlement Commission, the proceedings against co-noticees should also be considered concluded, citing relevant tribunal decisions. On the other hand, the Ld. AR relied on different cases to support the continuation of proceedings against co-noticees.

The Tribunal analyzed various precedents to resolve the legal issue at hand. It referred to the case of S.K. Colombowala, where a majority decision held that proceedings against co-noticees should be considered concluded when the main noticee settles with the Settlement Commission. However, a Division Bench in a different case took a different view, leading to a reference to a Larger Bench. The Larger Bench considered the S.K. Colombowala decision as effectively its own and remitted the matter for disposal by a Single Member.

In the case of M.K. Darewala, the Tribunal applied the S.K. Colombowala decision, stating that when the main noticee settles with the Settlement Commission, proceedings against co-noticees should also be considered concluded. This approach was further supported by recent judgments in other cases. The Tribunal disagreed with the view that a judgment not explicitly considered is not a binding precedent, emphasizing that decisions of Larger Benches are binding on Division Benches and Single Members when deciding on a principle of law.

Ultimately, the Tribunal held that when the main noticee settles with the Settlement Commission, the proceedings against co-noticees should be considered concluded. As a result, the impugned orders imposing penalties were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any consequential reliefs.