9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 372 - AT - Central ExcisePenalty on co-noticees when the main party s case is settled under the SVLDR Scheme 2019 - HELD THAT - This Court finds that in the matter of Prakash Steelage Ltd 2024 (11) TMI 468 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD the matter went in favor of the appellants after various decisions were considered. It was held in the case that the penalties imposed on the co-noticees in a case where the main noticee against whom the demand is confirmed the case is settled under SVLDRS then in respect of other co-noticees penalty will not sustain even if they have not filed a declaration under SVLDRS-2019 . Conclusion - The penalties imposed on co-noticees should be set aside if the main party s case is settled under the SVLDR Scheme 2019. The appeal is liable to be accepted. Accordingly appeal is allowed.
The issues presented and considered in the judgment are as follows:1. Whether penalties imposed on co-noticees are sustainable when the main party's case is settled under the SVLDR Scheme, 2019.2. Whether the decisions of a Division Bench or a Single Member Bench should prevail in determining the fate of other parties involved in a case.Issue 1: Penalties Imposed on Co-NoticeesRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents:- The SVLDR Scheme, 2019 provides for the settlement of duty demand cases and waives penalties on the main assessee and other co-noticees.- Precedents such as Anil K Modani and Subhash Panchal cases have interpreted the scheme's provisions regarding penalties.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:- The Division Bench decision in Prakash Steelage Ltd case held that penalties against co-noticees should be erased if the main party's case is settled under the SVLDR Scheme.- The Court emphasized the intent and purpose of the scheme to collect duty and forgo penalties.- The Court found that penalties against co-noticees should not continue if the main party has received relief under the scheme.Key Evidence and Findings:- The Court considered various judgments and the specific provisions of the Finance Act, 2019 related to the SVLDR Scheme.- The Court analyzed the implications of the scheme on penalties imposed on co-noticees.Application of Law to Facts:- The Court applied the provisions of the SVLDR Scheme and relevant case law to determine the sustainability of penalties on co-noticees.- The Court concluded that penalties on co-noticees should be set aside if the main party's case is settled under the scheme.Issue 2: Division Bench vs. Single Member Bench DecisionsRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents:- The judgment discussed conflicting decisions of a Division Bench and a Single Member Bench regarding the fate of other parties when the main case is settled under the SVLDR Scheme.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:- The Court noted the conflicting decisions in the Prakash Steelage Ltd case by a Division Bench and the Four R Association case by a Single Member Bench.- The Court held that the Division Bench judgment should prevail over the Single Member Bench decision in determining the fate of other parties.Key Evidence and Findings:- The Court cited the decisions of various Division Benches and Single Member Benches to support its conclusion.- The Court emphasized the importance of following the decision of the Division Bench for judicial discipline.Application of Law to Facts:- The Court applied the principle that Division Bench judgments should take precedence over Single Member Bench decisions in resolving conflicting interpretations of the law.- The Court concluded that the Division Bench decision in the Prakash Steelage Ltd case should be followed in determining the fate of other parties.Significant Holdings:- The Court held that penalties imposed on co-noticees should be set aside if the main party's case is settled under the SVLDR Scheme, 2019.- The Court determined that Division Bench judgments should prevail over Single Member Bench decisions in resolving conflicting interpretations of the law.In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal based on the above analysis and holdings, setting aside penalties on co-noticees when the main party's case is settled under the SVLDR Scheme and emphasizing the precedence of Division Bench decisions over Single Member Bench decisions.
|
