9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ides and perused the records. 2. The short point involved in the instant appeal is whether the penalty of Rs. 1,35,000/- on M/s. Windoors (India), Silvassa, the appellant herein, is sustainable or not. 3. It is seen that in the case of the main noticee i.e., M/s. V.J. Dodia and Bros., the Settlement Commission, vide Admission-Cum-Final Order No. 13/CUS/2006 dated 21-2-2006, has confirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate entrusted with the work of filing the application before the Settlement Commission, filed the application in respect of the main noticee only and the appellant came to know about this only on receipt of the Settlement Commission's Order dated 21-2-2006 (supra). They, therefore, filed an application dated 14-12-2006 alongwith other co-noticees before the Settlement Commission requesting it to e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1944. 5. The Tribunal in the case of S.K. Colombowala v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai reported in 2007 (220) E.L.T. 492 (Tri-Mumbai) has by the Majority Order held that the "Question as to who played the main role is irrelevant since once the case is settled by the Settlement Commission, it is settled in its entirety and such a case then cannot be adjudicated quo other co-noticee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any finding to the effect that the impugned goods are liable to confiscation under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Therefore, the penalty under Rule 26 ibid. which is dependent upon the goods being held liable to confiscation under Rule 25 ibid, cannot be imposed, the case having been settled by the Settlement Commission. 8. In the light of the foregoing discussions, the order pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
