9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p into the issues of M/s. Liberty Phosphate Limited who were the main appellants. A show cause notice dated 07.05.2012 was issued to M/s. Liberty Phosphate Limited for denial of benefit of exemption notification for Magnesium Sulphate which was being manufactured by the main appellant firm in amount of Rs. 88,31,300/- of Central Excise Duty was demanded from the main appellant and the present appellant was given notice for penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The matter was adjudicated by the learned Commissioner vide Order-In-Original dated 16.04.2013 wherein all the charges against the main noticee namely M/s. Liberty Phosphate Limited now M/s. Coromandel International Ltd. got confirmed. A penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at that once demand of duty against the main party is resolved under the SVLDRS Scheme, 2019. There is no cost remains for imposing penalty the director of the firm. The learned advocate has relied upon the following two decisions of this Tribunal:- "15. The Appellant herein relies on the following precedents, which are enclosed as EXHIBIT-C and D respectively: - (a) Shri V.K. Aggarwal & Shri J.K. Aggarwal Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, CGST & Central Excise, New Delhi reported vide 2023 (9) TMI 178 - CESTAT New Delhi; (b) M/s. Seimens Ltd. (Formerly known as M/s. Morgan Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.), Mr. Sunil Chellani Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-Ill reported vide 2023 (5) TMI 377 CESTAT, Mumbai." 4. I have heard b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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, Commissioner should have adjudicated as directed by Tribunal. No justification for imposition of penalty on reconsideration as per order of Tribunal is forthcoming." 15. I find no reasons to differ with the aforesaid view of the Tribunal and, therefore, I set aside the impugned order and the penalty imposed on the appellants. Both the appeals are accordingly allowed." 5. Following the above decision of this Tribunal, I allow the appeal. (Pronounced in the open court on 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
