Co-noticee liability is independent: settlement immunity for one noticee does not automatically cancel penalty exposure for another.

Immunity granted by the Settlement Commission to one noticee cannot be automatically extended to a co-noticee, because each noticee retains independent liability unless the law specifically provides otherwise. The Tribunal's view that settlement-based discharge of one noticee also entitled the respondent to penalty relief was held unsustainable. The High Court set aside that approach and remitted the appeal to the Tribunal for determination on merits in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether immunity granted by the Settlement Commission to one noticee could be extended to a co-noticee and whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the penalty on that basis.

Analysis: The Tribunal had proceeded on the premise that, since one of the noticees had obtained immunity on settlement, the respondent as a co-noticee was also entitled to the same benefit. That approach was held to be unsustainable in view of the binding view that discharge of liability by one noticee, whether through settlement or otherwise, does not absolve the remaining noticees of their independent liability.

Conclusion: The extension of immunity to the respondent was rejected and the Tribunal's order was set aside; the appeal was remitted to the Tribunal for decision on merits in accordance with law.

---