TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essed by different benches. Cases in which it is held by the Tribunal that penalties against co-noticees do not survive if the main appellant has settled the matter - HIM LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. VERSUS CC, NEW DELHI [ 2016 (4) TMI 1153 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORT) MUMBAI VERSUS MAHENDRA KUMAR DAREWALA [ 2016 (9) TMI 1011 - CESTAT MUMBAI] - RADIANT SILK MILLS (P) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUS. CEN. EX., JAIPUR [ 2013 (9) TMI 582 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] . Cases in which it is held by the Tribunal that penalties against co-noticees survive even if the main appellant has settled the matter - KI. INTERNATIONAL LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI [ 2013 (5) TMI 383 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] - MAMTA GARG VERSU ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce that M/s. Bharat Timber Traders Importer , Delhi imported timber undervaluing it. During investigation, DRI found that various importers had similarly undervalued timber imported from various countries the details of which were available with the middle man / supplier based in India Shri Avinash Sumerchand Jindal the appellant herein. Copies of e-mails were submitted by the appellant and his accounts clerk Shri Shivprasad Attal. Searches were conducted and statements were recorded and a show cause notice dated 13.2.2014 was issued to the importer proposing to reject the transaction value declared in their Bills of entry and re-assess the duty and recover the differential duty along with interest and impose penalties. The appellant an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal took a contrary view. Therefore, a learned member of this Tribunal has referred the matter to the larger bench in the case of Alberto Bestono vs Commissioner of Customs 2017-TIOL-2430-CESTAT Mumbai equivalent to 2019(370)ELT 791(Tri-Mumbai) . He, therefore, prays the appeal may be allowed and the penalty set aside or the matter may be decided after the decision of the larger bench. 5. Learned authorised representative, countered all the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant. He relies on Mamta Garg vs Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, NOIDA 2018(359)ELT77 (Tri-Del) in which the difference of opinion between the two members on if the case is settled before the Settlement Commission by the main ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l.) (iii) Commissioner of Customs, (Export), Mumbai v. Mahendra Kumar Darewala - 2016 (340) E.L.T. 727 (Tri. Mumbai) (iv) Him Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi - 2016 (338) E.L.T. 721 (Tri.-Del.) He submits that though there is a contrary judgment to the above in the case of K. I. International Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai - 2012 (282) E.L.T. 67 (Tri. Chennai) but the same was departed in the Division Bench judgment in the case of Him Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (supra). He further submits that the judgment of S.K. Colombowala (supra) to be considered as Larger Bench judgment, in the light of the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of P.C. Puri v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-II - [1985] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which it is held by the Tribunal that penalties against co-noticees survive even if the main appellant has settled the matter (i) K. I. International Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 2012 (282) E.L.T. 67 (Tri. Chennai) - Division bench (ii) Mamta Garg vs Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, NOIDA 2018 (359) ELT77 (Tri-Del) - Division bench, referred to third member decided by majority view (iii) A V Agro Products Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and CGST, Lucknow 2020 (373) ELT 258(Tri-Del) - single member bench 8. We find from the above, that both views were taken by different single member benches, division benches and also in cases where the two members of the bench differed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
