9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nless Steel, a request has been received from the partner of the firm indicating that they need adjournment, as the matter is very old and the advocate on record has withdrawn from the matter. In this background, this Court takes up the matters involving identical issue including of M/s. Reliance Stainless Steel (on merits). The Learned Advocate appearing for M K Steel Centre and Mahendra R Shah states the issue involved in this case is that as to what will happen to the other parties if the main party has obtained the settlement under the SVLDRS-2019 Scheme. Seeking relief for the client, he seeks to place reliance upon the decision of Prakash Steelage Ltd Vs. C.C.E & S.T- Bharuch vide Final Order No. 12591-12595/2024 dated 06.11.2025. 02 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ricting themselves to the total amount of duty or total amount of duty in dispute, as the case may be. Furthermore, section 124 of Finance Act, 2019 specifies relief as percentage of 'tax dues' and of late fee/penalty should those be the only detriments contemplated in a proceeding. It would, therefore, appear that a person imposed with penalty would be eligible to be 'declarant' subject to there being no demand of tax pending in the impugned proceedings. 6. Therefore, to the extent that the impugned order upheld recovery of duties under section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 none of the individual appellant herein would have been eligible to be declarant; the scheme itself does not acknowledge the existence of such appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty of appellant be set aside. It is also submitted that the appellant has not played any role for evasion of duty by M/s. Atlas Plasti. 2. Shri P Ganesan Learned Superintendent AR appearing for the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 3. We have carefully considered the submission made by the Learned AR and the Written Submission dated 31.01.2024 submitted by the appellant. Since, the appellant has been penalized under Rule 26 in connection with the duty evasion made by M/s. Atlas Plastics and their case has been settled under SVLDRS and the appeal was disposed by this Tribunal vide order dated 07.11.2023, the personal penalty of the appellant is not sustainable in the light of the following judgments:- * Shri V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
