TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of penalty as against the appellant - Moreover, insistence of payment of penalty by a co-noticee when the main party has settled the issue under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme defeats the spirit of the scheme itself. When the issue is of recurring nature and periodical show cause notices were being issued and adjudicated, no mala fides can be attributed to individuals and hence imposition of penalties is not justified. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/449-450/2011 - A/85939-85940/2021-WZB - Dated:- 17-3-2021 - Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (J) and P. Anjani Kumar, Member (T) Shri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ms. Anuradha Parab, Authorised Representative, for the Respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment reiterates the finding of the order-in-original and submits that since the main appellant had accepted their lapse and have settled the case under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 the imposition of penalty against the appellant is justified. The appellants were also free to appeal under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. Having not done so, they are liable to pay penalty that is imposed. 6. We find that the issue involved is valuation of excisable goods manufactured and cleared by the main appellant i.e. Vidyut Metallics Pvt. Ltd. We find that order-in-original records that since the actual cost of production of the said goods cleared to job workers during the period could be decided onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndicate the correct value at the time of clearance of the goods. It is not the case of the department that the assessee had misdeclared the assessable value with an intention to evade payment of duty. Therefore, question of imposition of penalty does not arise under the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. In view of the above, that is, clear that the case is of recurring nature; different adjudicating authorities have taken different stand vis- -vis imposition of penalties and no evidence of personal gain that would have accrued to the appellants has been brought out either in the show cause notice or the impugned order. We find that no case has been made by the department for imposition of penalty as against the appellant. 9. Mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
