TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether penalty imposed on a co-noticee under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 survives when the main demand against the principal noticee has been settled under SVLDRS, 2019.
Analysis: The appeal concerned only the sustainability of penalty on the co-noticee. The Tribunal accepted the view that, where the principal demand itself stands settled under SVLDRS, 2019, the penalty on the co-noticee does not survive. The contrary single-member view cited by the Revenue was distinguished in favour of the division bench view holding the field.
Conclusion: The penalty could not be sustained and was set aside in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Once the main party's demand is settled under SVLDRS, 2019, penalty on a co-noticee under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 does not survive.
TaxTMI 
