Tribunal overturns penalty on director due to lack of consideration and justification. Proper adjudication emphasized.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed on the director. The decision was based on the failure to consider the Tribunal's directions and the lack of justification for the penalty after the appellant's non-participation in SVLDRS. The Tribunal emphasized the need for proper adjudication as directed, highlighting the importance of following legal procedures even in the absence of opting for settlement schemes.

---

---

Issues:
1. Applicability of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) to co-noticees.
2. Imposition of penalty on a director for manipulating documents under Central Excise Rules.
3. Failure to opt for SVLDRS leading to penalty imposition.

Issue 1: Applicability of SVLDRS to Co-noticees
The Commissioner observed that when the main noticee and six co-noticees applied under SVLDRS, penalties were waived, but three co-noticees, including the director in question, did not apply. The Commissioner noted that the SVLDRS did not automatically extend benefits to co-noticees, necessitating adjudication for those who did not opt for the scheme.

Issue 2: Imposition of Penalty for Document Manipulation
The Commissioner found the director responsible for manipulating documents to claim full exemption under Notification No. 83/94. A penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 was initially imposed, but reduced to Rs. 20,000 due to missing the SVLDRS opportunity. The Commissioner upheld the penalty based on proven allegations of document manipulation.

Issue 3: Failure to Opt for SVLDRS and Penalty Imposition
The appellant, a director, argued ignorance of the main noticee's settlement under SVLDRS and lack of direct involvement in the alleged act. The Tribunal's remand order highlighted discrepancies in the case, emphasizing the need for proper examination and cross-examination. Despite the appellant's failure to opt for SVLDRS, the Commissioner's penalty imposition was deemed unjustified, as proper adjudication following the Tribunal's directions was not conducted.

Judgment:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed on the director. The decision was based on the failure to consider the Tribunal's directions and the lack of justification for the penalty after the appellant's non-participation in SVLDRS. The Tribunal emphasized the need for proper adjudication as directed, highlighting the importance of following legal procedures even in the absence of opting for settlement schemes.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues raised, the Commissioner's observations, the appellant's arguments, and the Tribunal's decision, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal aspects involved in the case.

---