2009 (2) TMI 611 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty on Windoors (India) deemed unsustainable by Tribunal; co-noticees exempted from penalties post-settlement.

The penalty imposed on the appellant, M/s. Windoors (India), Silvassa, was deemed unsustainable by the Tribunal. Citing precedents and legal provisions, ... Penalty - Co-noticee - Settlement of case - whether the penalty of ₹ 1,35,000/- on M/s. Windoors (India), Silvassa, the appellant herein, is sustainable or not? Issues:1. Whether the penalty imposed on the appellant is sustainable or not.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the sustainability of a penalty of Rs. 1,35,000 imposed on the appellant, M/s. Windoors (India), Silvassa. The Settlement Commission had confirmed a duty amount and ordered payment of interest by another entity, M/s. V.J. Dodia and Bros., granting them immunity from fine, penalty, and prosecution. The appellant claimed that they were assured by M/s. V.J. Dodia and Bros. that the Central Excise case would be handled for all noticees, but the application before the Settlement Commission was only filed for the main noticee. Subsequently, the appellant sought exoneration based on the Settlement Commission's earlier order. However, the Commission did not admit their application, citing non-acceptance of additional duty and failure to file returns as reasons, as per provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944.The Tribunal's decision in the case of S.K. Colombowala v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai established that once a case is settled by the Settlement Commission, it concludes entirely, and penalties cannot be imposed on co-noticees. Similarly, the Tribunal in Shitala Prasad Sharma v. CCE, Mumbai I emphasized that co-accused cannot face harsher penalties than the main accused, especially when the main accused is absolved of penalties. In this context, the judgment highlighted that the Settlement Commission's order did not find the impugned goods liable for confiscation under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which is a prerequisite for imposing penalties under Rule 26. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the appellant was deemed unsustainable, leading to the setting aside of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and allowing the appeal filed by the appellants.In conclusion, the judgment carefully analyzed the legal provisions, precedents, and the specifics of the case to determine the sustainability of the penalty imposed on the appellant, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellants based on the Settlement Commission's prior orders and the application of relevant legal principles.