9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of M/s. Siemens Limited [2023 (5) TMI 377 - CESTAT MUMBAI] that penalty on the co-noticee will not sustain when the main party's case of confirmed demand is settled under SVLDRS-2019. Therefore, following the above precedent, the penalty imposed upon the appellant in this case is not sustainable.
The impugned order-in-appeal set aside - appeal allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were brokered by Shri Ketan G. Shah i.e. the appellant. For the transportation of these goods the appellant arranged the transporters. Consequentially, Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant directing to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed on them under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Snow Cause Notice was adjudicated vide order dated 29.12.2016 and penalty of Rs 5,00,000/- was imposed on the appellant under Rule 26(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal and upheld the Order-in-Original and also upheld the penalty imposed on the appellant. The appellant fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. C.Ex./13/Dem/ADJ/CSM-ADC/VLS/2016-17 Dated 29.12.2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Valsad Commissionerate, it is requested to award the benefit of SVLDRS, 2019 in this matter also in the interest of justice. 5. In support of above submissions and arguments, learned Counsel submitted copy of order dated 10.03.2021 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No. E/12140/2018, in the case of M/s. Vraj Packaging Pvt. Limited, in which this Tribunal observed that concerned Commissionerate of Central Goods and Service Tax submitted a list of cases including the present case which have been settled under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 and discharge certificate has been issued. Con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought customers for Vraj Packaging and subsequently arranged the transportation of these goods. The Appellant is liable for penal action under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and the impugned order is correct in imposing penalty on the appellant. However, the learned AR did not challenge the fact that the case of M/s. Vraj Packaging has been settled under SVLDRS-2019 and the appeal stands disposed of as withdrawn vide order dated 10.03.2021 passed in Appeal No. E/12140/2018. 7. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that when the demand in the case of main appellant M/s. Vraj packaging Pvt. Limited has been settled under SVLDRS-2019 vide order No. A/11013/2021 dated 10.03.2021, the case of co-noticee for penalty will not sus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
