9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant would fail for the reason that the said Proviso Section 124(i)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994 that deals with Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 and subsequent clarificatory circular issued vide Circular No. 1071/4/2019- CX.8 dated 27.08.2019 as well as consistent decision of this Tribunal, penalty would have been settled at Nil on the Appellant, had he filed an application under the scheme and availed of its opportunity. In respect of the merit of the appeal also we have perused the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and noticed that allegation of violation of provisions of Central Excise Act is made in general without specific reference to the actual conscious knowledge of the Appellant that the goods so pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia Pvt. Ltd., Wuerth India Pvt. Ltd., and Marion Wuerth India Pvt. Ltd as deemed withdrawn under Section 127(6) of the amended Finance Act, 1994. 4. In respect of the other Appellant Protochem Industries Pvt. Ltd., Shri R. M. Patkar, Consultant appeared and argued Shri Vinod S. Chettiparambil, AR argued in support of the Department. We have also perused the appeal case record and relied upon judgments cited by Learned Consultant including three orders passed by the CESTAT Mumbai Zonal Bench in Final Order No. A/87176-87178/2023 dated 30.11.2023, Final Oder No. A/85324/2023 dated 11.01.2023 and Final Order No. A/85432-85436/2023 dated 06.03.2023 on the issue. His argument is based primarily on the fact that had the Appellant applied under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 27.08.2019 as well as consistent decision of this Tribunal, penalty would have been settled at Nil on the Appellant, had he filed an application under the scheme and availed of its opportunity. In respect of the merit of the appeal also we have perused the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and noticed that allegation of violation of provisions of Central Excise Act is made in general without specific reference to the actual conscious knowledge of the Appellant that the goods so purchased by them were liable for confiscation so as to attract penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 7. Therefore, we are of the considered view that on merit as well as under the dispute resolution scheme penalty would not surv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
