9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... main noticee. The interpretation placed is based on the provisions of the Circular, which explains that the scheme is a bold endeavor to unload the baggage relating to the legacy taxes viz. central excise and service tax that have been subsumed under GST and allow business to make a new beginning and focus on new GST, therefore, it is incumbent on all the officers and staff of CBIC to be partner with the trade and industry to make the scheme a grand success. This Tribunal in similar circumstances has set aside the said penalty imposed in the case of SHRI B.V. KSHATRIYA VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST CE, NASHIK [ 2023 (5) TMI 858 - CESTAT MUMBAI] . The impugned order and the penalty imposed on the appellants set aside - appeal allowed. - MS. BINU TAMTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri A.K. Batra, Chartered Accountant with Ms. Sakshi Khanna, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Mahesh Bhardwaj, Authorised Representative for the respondent. ORDER Two separate appeals have been filed by the appellants viz. V.K. Aggarwal and J. K. Aggarwal against the Order-in-Appeal No.39- 43/CE/DLH/2022 dated 07.12.2022, whereby the appeals were dismissed. 2. The brief facts are th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 upon Shri J.K. Agarwal, Director of M/s. Indian Concast Pvt. Ltd., B-41, Jhilmil Industrial Area, Shahadra, Delhi-110095. iii) I impose penalty amounting to Rs.1,50,000 (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only) under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11 AC of the Central Excise act, 1944 upon Shri V.K. Agarwal, Director of M/s. Indian Concast Pvt. Ltd., B-41, Jhilmil Industrial Area, Shahadra, Delhi-95. iv) I impose penalty amounting to Rs.1,50,000 (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only) under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 upon Shri Mohit Agarwal, Director of M/s. Indian Concast Pvt. Ltd., B-41, Jhilmil Industrial Area, Shahadra, Delhi-95. v) I impose penalty amounting to Rs.5,93,906/- (Rupees Five lakh ninety three thousand nine hundred six only) under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l as separate penal action against the co-noticee/s, specified therein, if the main notice has settled the tax dues the co-noticee/s can opt for the Scheme for the waiver of penalty. For instance, the main notice has settled the matter before the Settlement Commission and paid the dues and the co-noticee/s were not a party to the proceedings. In such a case, the co-noticee/s can file a declaration under the Scheme. Similarly, in a case of arrears, where the main notice has paid the duty, the conoticee/ s can file a declaration under the Scheme. 10. The learned Counsel for the appellant has pointed out to the provisions to the Circular No.1071/4/2019-CX.8 dated 27.08.2019. The relevant para thereof is quoted below:- Section 124(1) (b) provides that where the tax dues are relatable to a show cause notice for late fee or penalty only, and the amount of duty in the said notice has been paid or is nil , then the entire amount of late fee or penalty will be waived. This section, inter alia, covers cases of penal action against co-noticees. In case of a show cause notice demanding duty/tax from the main tax payer and proposing penal action against co-noticees, it is clarified tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s necessary that the relief sought by the appellant deserves to be allowed and penalty imposed on them needs to be set aside. The Circular issued by the department is binding on them. 13. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to a series of orders passed by this Tribunal on the subject of the liability of the co-noticee when the main noticee has already discharged the liability in issue, which are as follows:- 1. M/s. Siemens Ltd. (formerly known as M/s. Morgan Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. ), Mr. Sunil Chellani Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III cited as 2023 (5) TMI 377 CESTAT-Mumbai dated 06.03.2023. 2. Shri B.V. Kshatriya Vs. Commissioner of GST CE, Nashik cited as 2023 (5) TMI 858 CESTAT Mumbai dated 11.01.2023. 3. Mr. Dinesh Kanoria Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I cited as 2022 (12) TMI 1408 CESTAT Mumbai dated 20.12.2022. 4. Shri Ramesh Despande and Shri Debdutta Chatterjee Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur cited as 2021(7) TMI 1307 CESTAT Mumbai dated 27.07.2021. 5. P.B. Vyas and Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III (17.03.2021 CESTAT Mumb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
