9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 771X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order dated 26.03.2012. 2. None for the appellants. Shri Ravinder Jangu, learned Authorized Representative for the Department, reiterates the findings of the OIO and submits that the Department made a watertight case against the main noticee i.e. M/s Govind Castings, who have settled the case with the Department under SVLDR Scheme. The appellants have not approached the competent authority to settle the dispute and therefore, the penalty imposed on them should be sustained. 3. We find that nobody appeared on behalf of the appellants in spite of repeated notices. Therefore, we proceed to decide the case on the basis of submissions of the learned Authorized Representative for the Department and the records of the case. We find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the 30th day of June, 2019; or (b) an amount in arrears; or (c) an enquiry or investigation or audit where the amount is quantified on or before the 30th day of June, 2019; or (d) a voluntary disclosure. 9. We find that the relief available under the Scheme is provided under Section 124 which reads as follows: 124. Relief available under Scheme. - (1) Subject to the conditions specified in sub-section (2), the relief available to a declarant under this Scheme shall be calculated as follows: - (a) where the tax dues are relatable to a show cause notice or one or more appeals arising out of such notice which is pending as on the 30th day of June, 2019, and if the amount of duty is, - (i) rupees fifty lakhs or less, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice Tax Appeal No.60304 of 2017) held that: "considering the fact that the main party has already been discharged and obtained Form-4, in that circumstance, we waive the penalty imposed on the appellant and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any."The Conclusion by the Tribunal in other cases as cited by the appellants was also similar. -------- 12. In view of the above, we find that the benefit of the Scheme cannot be denied to the appellants just because they did not file the declaration under SVLDR Scheme. Moreover, as for the submissions of the appellants and our discussion as above, the impugned order cannot be sustained on merits also as far as the imposition of penalty, on the appellants herein, is concerned. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
