Tribunal Dismisses Appeals as Withdrawn; Sets Aside Penalty Due to Lack of Evidence in Duty Payment Case.

The Tribunal concluded that the appeals of three appellants under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 were dismissed as deemed withdrawn, with NIL duty liability indicated. For the remaining appellant, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals), noting the lack of specific evidence of conscious knowledge regarding the clearance of goods without duty payment. The Tribunal determined that the penalty would not survive since the demand was settled under the scheme, aligning with the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and relevant circulars.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are settlement under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, dismissal of appeals deemed withdrawn under Section 127(6) of the amended Finance Act, 1994, imposition of penalty under Rule 26 on the Co-Appellant, and legality of penalty confirmed against the present Appellant without proper establishment of conscious knowledge.

Settlement under Sabka Vishwas Scheme:
Three appellants settled their disputes under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 and received SVLDRS Form-4 indicating NIL duty liability. The appeals filed by these three appellants were dismissed as deemed withdrawn under Section 127(6) of the amended Finance Act, 1994.

Imposition of Penalty and Legality:
For the remaining appellant, it was argued that had the appellant applied under the scheme, no penalty would have survived against them. The argument was also based on the legality of penalty confirmed without proper establishment of conscious knowledge about the clearance of goods without payment of duty. The Tribunal found that when demand is settled under the scheme, imposition of penalty would fail as per the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and subsequent clarificatory circulars.

Decision and Rationale:
The Tribunal considered the settlement under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme and the merit of the appeal. It was noted that the allegation of violation of provisions was made in general without specific reference to the actual conscious knowledge of the appellant. The Tribunal concluded that penalty would not survive against the present appellant and set aside the order of penalty imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the appellant.

Final Order:
The appeals of three appellants settled under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme were dismissed as deemed withdrawn, and the appeal of the remaining appellant was allowed, setting aside the penalty imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Separate Judgement:
No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.

---