9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant argued that the case of the main party involved in the duty evasion had been settled under the SVLDRS - HELD THAT:- The appellant has been penalized under Rule 26 (1) in connection with the duty evasion made by M/s. Phenix Construction Technologies and the case of M/s. Phenix Construction Technologies has been settled under SVLDRS-2019 and the appeal was disposed of by this Tribunal vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccountant appeared for the Appellant Shri Ajay Kumar Samota, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER In this appeal the appellant has challenged the personal penalty imposed under Rule 26(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The penalty was imposed on the charge of abating the evasion of duty by M/s. Phenix Construction Technologies. 2. Shri Vipul Khandhar, Learned Chartered Accountant submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de by M/s. Phenix Construction Technologies and the case of M/s. Phenix Construction Technologies has been settled under SVLDRS-2019 and the appeal was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 10.06.2021, hence, the personal penalty of the appellant is not sustainable in the light of the following judgments:- * Shri V.K. Aggarwal and Shri J.K. Aggarwal v. CCE, New Delhi - 2023 (9) TMI 178 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
