9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther co-noticees. Reliance placed in the case of Anil K Modani [ 2024 (1) TMI 444 - CESTAT MUMBAI ] where it was held that ' Even though the appellants herein could not, at the time of existence of the scheme have derived the benefits from the coverage by the scheme, the intent and purpose of the scheme being collection of the duty or some percentage thereof, and forgoing interest, fine and penalty, the disposal of the application of M/s JSW Ispat Steel Ltd renders the continuance of the penalty against the three appellants to be not in conformity with the relief scheme. Accordingly, they are eligible for erasure of the penalties against them.' In the case of Subhash Panchal [ 2024 (5) TMI 1484 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD ] it was held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ltant appeared on behalf of the appellants. They submitted that now it is a settled law that when the main case of demand of duty is settled under SVLDRS-2019, the penalty on the co-noticee will not sustain. They relied on the following judgments: Anil K Modani vide Final Order No. A/87176-87178/2023 dated 30.11.23 Vikas Agarwal Final Order No. A/11738/2021 Uni Deritend Ltd. 2011 (272) ELT 312 (T. Mum) Ispat Indus. Ltd. 2008 (226) ELT 218 (T-Mum) Steel Tubes of India 2007 (217) ELT 506 (T-LB) Shree Naklank Ltd. 2019 (365) ELT 407 (Guj) Mamta Garg 2018 (59) ELT 77 (Tri. Del.) Sanjay Vimalbhai Deora CESTAT affirmed 2014 (309) ELT A131 (SC) Naresh Agarwal Final Order No. A/10567/2020 dated 27.02.2020 Mangalam Drugs A/12582-12584/2018 dated 14. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f has been set out in section 123 of Finance Act, 2019 with all the alternatives restricting themselves to the total amount of duty or total amount of duty in dispute, as the case may be. Furthermore, section 124 of Finance Act, 2019 specifies relief as percentage of tax dues and of late fee/penalty should those be the only detriments contemplated in a proceeding. It would, therefore, appear that a person imposed with penalty would be eligible to be declarant subject to there being no demand of tax pending in the impugned proceedings. 6. Therefore, to the extent that the impugned order upheld recovery of duties under section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 none of the individual appellant herein would have been eligible to be declarant; the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement of the case of main party, hence the personal penalty of appellant be set aside. It is also submitted that the appellant has not played any role for evasion of duty by M/s. Atlas Plastics. 2. Shri P Ganesan Learned Superintendent AR appearing for the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 3. We have carefully considered the submission made by the Learned AR and the Written Submission dated 31.01.2024 submitted by the appellant. Since, the appellant has been penalized under Rule 26 in connection with the duty evasion made by M/s. Atlas Plastics and their case has been settled under SVLDRS and the appeal was disposed by this Tribunal vide order dated 07.11.2023, the personal penalty of the appellant is not sustainable in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
