9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - HELD THAT:- Since the main appellant has settled the issue under SVLDR Scheme, penalty imposed on co-noticees being the CEO and Managing Director of the main noticee is unsustainable. Similar issue decided in decision of the Tribunal in the matter of V K Agarwal Vs. CC, New Delhi [2023 (9) TMI 178 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] wherein it is 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 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, Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As regards the seized goods a duty of Rs. 1,58,912/- was confirmed along with interest. Further a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- each was imposed on Shri Shashi Kumar, CEO and Shri R G Venkatesh, M.D of the M/s. Diamond Display Solutions Pvt. Ltd. under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. As regards Show Cause No. 126/2014-15 involving the seized goods released provisionally on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 3,21,433/- and penalty of Rs.1,30,000/- on furnishing of the Bank Guarantee by the appellant, on adjudication the bank guarantee was appropriated against the redemption fine. Further a penalty of Rs. 1,30,000/- under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 was imposed on the appellant. Aggrieved by the impugned order, 4(four) Appeals hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cheme, they would have paid 'nil' duty, in view of the relief available to them under section 124(1) (b) of the Finance Act. This Tribunal in similar circumstances has set aside the said penalty imposed in the case of Shri B.V. Kshatriya (supra). The relevant paragraph is given below:- "3.2 Thereafter, on introduction of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019, the main noticee, M/s. Bhikusa Papers Pvt. Ltd and other co-noticees settled the dispute under SVLDRS, but the present appellant, who is a director of the main noticee failed to opt under the Scheme. However, without considering the directions given in the remand order and allowing cross examination, Commissioner has imposed penalties on the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
