TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri L.V. Pai, Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri K. Lal, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 2. The short point involved in the instant appeal is whether the penalty of Rs. 1,35,000/- on M/s. Windoors (India), Silvassa, the appellant herein, is sustainable or not. 3. It is seen that in the case of the main noticee i.e., M/s. V.J. Dodia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against all the noticees mentioned in the show cause notice shall be looked after by them. However, the advocate entrusted with the work of filing the application before the Settlement Commission, filed the application in respect of the main noticee only and the appellant came to know about this only on receipt of the Settlement Commission s Order dated 21-2-2006 (supra). They, therefore, filed an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ictional Central Excise officer as laid down under sub-section (1) of Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 5. The Tribunal in the case of S.K. Colombowala v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai reported in 2007 (220) E.L.T. 492 (Tri-Mumbai) has by the Majority Order held that the Question as to who played the main role is irrelevant since once the case is settled by the Settlement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed. 7. I further note the Order dated 21-2-2006 of the Settlement Commission does not contain any finding to the effect that the impugned goods are liable to confiscation under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Therefore, the penalty under Rule 26 ibid. which is dependent upon the goods being held liable to confiscation under Rule 25 ibid, cannot be imposed, the case having been settle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
