9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1033X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at once the main noticees have filed the declaration under the scheme and have deposited the duty required to be paid under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, 2019 and Discharge Certificate has been issued by the department, thereafter the co-notices are eligible to seek waiver of penalty under the scheme by filing a declaration has been considered in series of decisions by this Tribunal. Reliance placed on the latest decision dated 29.08.2024 in VK Aggarwal versus Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST Central Excise, New Delhi [ 2023 (9) TMI 178 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where it was held that without considering the directions given in the remand order and allowing cross examination, Commissioner has imposed penalties on the appellant, just for reason that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant - Appeal allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 29.08.2024 in VK Aggarwal versus Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST & Central Excise, New Delhi (2024) 15 Central 220 (Tri. Del.) : 11. It appears that in terms of the aforesaid circular as well as the FAQ referred above, the co-noticee has a responsibility to opt or apply for the scheme, once the main notice has been issued the discharge certificate of the duty liability, which in the present case, the appellant has failed to do so. I am of the opinion that this is only a procedural flow, for which the appellant cannot be burdened with the liability of penalty, in asmuch as, there is no loss to the Revenue. The amount proposed in the show cause notice stands settled with the issuance of the discharge certificate issued in favour of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ular 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) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remand order and allowing cross examination, Commissioner has imposed penalties on the appellant, just for reason that the appellant did not settle the issue along with others under SVLDRS. Such approach of Commissioner cannot be justified. Even if the appellant has not approached under SVLDRS, Commissioner should have adjudicated as directed by Tribunal. No justification for imposition of penalty on reconsideration as per order of Tribunal is forthcoming." 5. The present case is squarely covered by the aforementioned decision as in the said case after the main noticee was issued the discharge certificate under the SVLDR Scheme, 2019 towards the duty liability the co-noticee had not filed the declaration but was held to be entitled to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
