Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2025 (1) TMI 416

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nder Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The one division bench judgment, in the case of Prakash Steeladge Ltd [ 2024 (11) TMI 468 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD ] held that ' the penalties imposed on the co-noticees in a case where the main noticee against whom the demand is confirmed, the case is settled under SVLDRS then in respect of other co-noticees penalty will not sustain even if they have not filed a declaration under SVLDRS-2019 and decision on the issue of SVLDRS-2019 in the case of Four R Associates and others reported as [ 2023 (11) TMI 9 - CESTAT CHENNAI ] given by Single Member Bench whereas the aforesaid cited decisions are given by Division Bench. Therefore, Division Bench judgment will prevail over Single Member Bench.' Con .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ade by both the sides and perused the records. I find that as per the judgments of not only Single Member Bench but also of the division bench cited by the learned Counsel, it has been held that in case of settlement of case under SVLDRS-2019 against the main party on whom there is duty demand, the co-noticee/co-appellant shall not liable to penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The one division bench judgment, in the case of Prakash Steeladge Ltd (supra) is reproduced below:- The issue involved in the present case is that when the case of main appellant involved demand of duty interest and penalty has been settled under SVLDRS-2019 whether the penalty on co-noticees can be continued or otherwise? 2. Shri P.K. Shetty, A.X.S, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... against whom the demand was confirmed as well as on other co-noticees. Some of the judgments on this issue are reproduced below: Anil K Modani vide Final Order No. A/87176-87178/2023 dated 30.11.23 We find that the decision in re Indi-Swift Laboratories Ltd, relied upon by the Learned Authorised Representative, was in the specific context of conjunctions employed in rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the consequence thereof for recovery of credit along with interest. Chapter V of Finance Act, 2019 expressly pertains to legacy dispute resolution scheme which considered deposit of duty involved in dispute to suffice for grant of relief of interest, penalty and any other consequence under Central Excise Act, 1944 or Finance Act, 1944. Th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in conformity with the relief scheme. Accordingly, they are eligible for erasure of the penalties against them. 7. For the above reasons, we allow these appeals and set aside the impugned order. Subhash Panchal vide Final Order No. 11014 of 2024 dated 08.05.2024 In this appeal the appellant has challenged the personal penalty of Rs.50,000/- under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The penalty was imposed on the charge of abating the evasion of duty by M/s. Atlas Plastics. When the matter was called out written submission was placed on record by the appellant wherein it is submitted that the main party's case of M/s. Atlas Plastics has been settled under SVLDRS 2019 and this Tribunal has disposed of appeal vide order No. 12602/2023 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1305 CESTAT Mumbai Sri Sasthi Charan Banerjee Vs. Commissioner of CGST CX, Bolpur Commissionerate, - 2022 (12) TMI 1437 CESTAT Kolkata In view of the above judgments, it is settled that once the main case of duty evasion is settled under SVLDRS 2019 the penalty on the Co-appellant shall not survive. 4. Accordingly, the penalty is set aside. The Appeal is allowed. In view of above judgments given by the two coordinate Division Benches, the penalties imposed on the co-noticees in a case where the main noticee against whom the demand is confirmed, the case is settled under SVLDRS then in respect of other co-noticees penalty will not sustain even if they have not filed a declaration under SVLDRS-2019 and decision on the issue of SVLDRS-2019 in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates