9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1033X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ules, 2002 on both the appellants. 2. The appellant no. 1 is engaged in trading of food grades/chemicals, raw materials, like flavour, Chocolate Powder, Colour, etc. The appellant no. 2 is engaged in trading business of chemicals, mainly maize products, like liquid Glucose, Starch, Powder, Dextrose, Mono Hydrate, etc. Show cause notice dated 23.07.2015 alleged that both the appellants had supplied raw material to M/s Asha Food Products and other related concerns which was used in the manufacture of excisable goods cleared clandestinely and therefore penalty under rule 26 of Rules was proposed against the appellant. The Commissioner, CGST Central Excise, Indore by the impugned order, confirmed the demand of penalty of Rs.10 lakhs against th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 the main noticee. The interpretation placed is based on the provisions of the Circular, which explains that the scheme is a bold endeavor to unload the baggage relating to the legacy taxes viz. central excise and service tax that have been subsumed under GST and allow business to make a new beginning and focus on new GST, therefore, it is incumbent on all the officers and staff of CBIC to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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) TMI 1408 - CESTAT Mumbai dated 20.12.2022. 4. Shri Ramesh Despande and Shri Debdutta Chatterjee Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur cited as 2021(7) TMI 1307 - CESTAT - Mumbai dated 27.07.2021. 5. P.B. Vyas and Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III (17.03.2021 - CESTAT - Mumbai): MANU/CM/0008/2021. 6. Sri Sasthi Charan Banerjee Vs. Commissioner of CGST & CX, Bol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty 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 waiver of penalty as non-filing of the declaration was held to be merely a procedural flaw for which the appellant cannot be burdened with the liability of penalty more so since there was no loss to the revenue. Similarly, the appellant herein have also not filed the declaration after the main noticees have been issued Discharge Certificate towards the duty liability but the fact remains th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
