2010 (10) TMI 218

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cees would still be open to imposition of penalty when the case of main noticee stand settled before Settlement Commission. Further, the fact that Settlement Commission has observed that their order is only in respect of main noticee, cannot disturb the legal position settled by catena of judgments referred – Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) REPRESENTED BY : Shri R.K. Ghadge, Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri J.S. Negi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The appellant is challenging imposition of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed upon him under Rule 13 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 read with Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules. The appellant is a Director of M/s. Komal Automiser Pvt. Ltd. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ad observed that "for the sake of record, it is made clear that this immunity cannot automatically extend to other noticees in this case who are not applicant before this Commission". He, accordingly, upheld the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellant. Hence, the present appeal. 4. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri R.K. Ghadge, learned Consultant, appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri J.S. Negi, learned SDR. appearing on behalf of the Revenue, I find that the appellant's main contention is that the dispute of manufacturing unit having been settled before Settlement Commission, no penalty could be imposed upon him, who is the Director of manufacturing unit. For the above proposition, he has relied upon Hon'ble Su .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to not to follow the precedent decisions. Whether the penalty stand imposed on the main noticee, who had approached Settlement Commission or the same stand waived by Settlement Commission, cannot be made the criteria for deciding the legal proposition i.e. as to whether the co-noticees would still be open to imposition of penalty when the case of main noticee stand settled before Settlement Commission. Further, the fact that Settlement Commission has observed that their order is only in respect of main noticee, cannot disturb the legal position settled by catena of judgments referred supra. As such, by following the same, I set aside the impugned order, imposing penalty upon the appellant and allow his appeal with consequential relief. (Pr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X