9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 840X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... losed. The Central Excise officers visited the factor on 04.09.2006 and conducted various checks and verifications, in the presence of the security guards, as the factory was not working and no employee of the appellant was available for stock taking it was found that there were shortages of scrap. 2. The officers conducted investigations and came to a view that one main appellant M/s. Ashok Magnetics Pvt. Ltd., availed the Cenvat credit of duty based upon the invoices issued by the assessee without the corresponding supply of the materials. 3. In view of the foregoing, proceedings were initiated against the main appellant proposing confirmation of demand of duty in respect of shortages of scrap detected at the time of visit of the office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6, they contested that the main noticee M/s. Ashok Magnetics Pvt Ltd., have settled the dispute in The Settlement Commission and consequently the proceedings against the present assessee should have been dropped. The original adjudicating authority did not find favour with the above submissions of the appellant and confirmed demand of Rs. 1,54,146/- along with imposition of identical penalty on the manufacturing Unit. In addition, identical penalties were imposed on the other two appellants in terms of Rule 26. The said order was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) but penalties on the individual appellants were reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- respectively. The said order of Commissioner (Appeals) is impugned before Tribunal. 5. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said issue is also no more res integra in view of the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of S.K. Colombowala Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai reported in 2007 (220) E.L.T.492 (Tri. -Mumbai). It was held that in case of settlement by the main noticee, the penalty proceedings against co-noticees would also get dropped and cannot continue. The said decision stand followed in the case of (i) M/s. Kinship Agency Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (I), Nhava Sheva reported in 2016 (334) E.L.T.695 (Tri. -Mumbai); (ii) M/s. Windoors (India) Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II reported in 2009 (246) E.L.T.345 (Tri.-Mumbai) and (iii) M/s. Pearl Polymers Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad reported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
