9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .G. Trading Company on receiving the show-cause notice itself paid-up the entire enhanced duty along with interest and also paid-up 25% penalty. The present proceedings were continued against the appellants herein as co-noticee. The main plea raised by the appellant was since the other co-noticee has paid up the entire duty, interest and 25% penalty, proceedings has to be deemed to be concluded against all other noticees as per sub-section (1A)(2) of section 28 to Customs Act, 1962. However, after due process of law, the original authority confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalties of Rs. 2,00,000/- against the appellants herein. In appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. The appellant approached the Tribunal and vide Fina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst the co-noticees has to be deemed to be concluded. Thus, penalty imposed against the appellant herein cannot sustain. He referred to the Circular of the Board No.450/190/2015 - Cus. IV, dated 15.03.2016 and submitted that the board has clarified that when the duty, interest and penalties have been paid-up by the noticee, the proceedings against other persons/co-noticees in the show-cause notice would be deemed to be concluded. He also took assistance of the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of S. Jaikumar Vs Commissioner of Customs, Cochin reported in 2017-TIOL-2407-CESTAT-Bangalor and M/s.Welspring Universal Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi reported in 2017 (348) E.L.T.292 (Tri.-Del.). 3. The learned Authorised Represen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case may be, by the main noticee to whom inter-alia a demand of duty has been issued has been fulfilled. Further, all such cases where proceedings reach closure stage under the provisions of Section 28, an order to the effect must be invariably issued by the concerned adjudicating authority." 6. However, the Tribunal in the case of S. Jaikumar (supra) as well as in the case of M/s. Welspring Universal (supra) has considered the very same issue and held that the proceedings against the other noticees has to be considered as concluded when one of the noticees has complied with the provisio to sub-section (2) of section 28. Therefore, I find that the confirmation of penalty on the appellant is unwarranted. The same requires to be set aside, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
