9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e applications are disposed of. CUSAA 182/2019 & CM Appl.No. 23184/2019 (stay) 3. Admit. 4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. 5. The challenge in the present appeal is to the final order dated 5th June, 2018 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dismissing the appeal Customs Appeal Nos. C/361-363/2010 (SM) and the subsequent order dated 21st February, 2019 passed by the CESTAT in Customs ROA Application No. C/ROA/50625-50627/2018 (SM) seeking recall of the aforementioned order dated 5th June, 2018. 6. The Appellant, M/s Genex Foods Pvt. Ltd., is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of refined Edible Oils and Vanaspati. Pursuant to certain i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise. By the said order penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs was imposed on the present Appellant. 10. The appeal filed by the present Appellant along with the appeals filed by its Director Shri Rohit Agarwal and M/s A V Agro Products Ltd. & Ors. came up for hearing before the CESTAT on 11th May, 2018. After reserving orders, the impugned order dated 5th June, 2018 was passed holding that the co-noticees including the Appellant could not claim immunity on the basis of the order dated 24th February 2009 of the Settlement Commission which was confined to the main noticee i.e. M/s Pioneer Soap & Chemicals and 6 other co-noticees. It was held that the benefit of the Kar Vivad Samadhan (KVS) Scheme could not suo motu be extended to these Appellants. The app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Department, "there is nothing which remains to still be adjudicated". 13. The question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is as under:- i) Was the CESTAT justified in declining to extend the benefit of the order passed by the Settlement Commission to the present Appellant? ii) Was the CESTAT obliged to deal with the appeal on merits notwithstanding the preliminary objection raised by the Department on issue (i) above? 14. As far as question (i) above is concerned, having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, the Court is of the view that the mere fact that the Settlement Commission permitted the Department to proceed against the co-noticees in accordance with law did not mean ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
