TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Penalty Dropped Under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules 2002 After Settlement Commission Immunity for Undervaluation Allegations</h1> <h3>Sharu Steels Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CE & ST, Ludhiana</h3> CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty under rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 imposed for alleged undervaluation and issuance of ... Levy of penalty u/r 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - undervaluation - issuance of parallel invoice - inadmissible Cenvat credit - appellant when they have already approached to the Settlement Commission and in the case of main party, where the case has been settled before the Settlement Commission - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the appellant has approached to the Settlement Commission, therefore, based on the ratio in the case of S.K. Colombowala [2007 (7) TMI 514 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], the appellant is entitled for immunity for imposing penalty on them. In these circumstances, the penalty imposed on the appellant dropped. The appeal is disposed off. The appellant appealed an order imposing penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, arising from issuing parallel invoices and enabling inadmissible Cenvat credit; the main beneficiary settled its case before the Settlement Commission while the appellant's own Settlement application was rejected. Central question: whether penalty under Rule 26 can be imposed on a co-noticee who approached the Settlement Commission when the principal party obtained settlement. Relying on the Tribunal's precedent in Mamta Garg (citing S.K. Colombowala), the Tribunal emphasized that it is necessary to 'examin[e] role of each of noticees' to determine whether acts are 'part and parcel of same offence' or amount only to abetment; if so, co-noticees 'may be covered for immunity' but if a co-noticee committed an 'offence distinct and liable for penalty' immunity is not automatic. Here, since the appellant had approached the Settlement Commission and its role was linked to the main offence, the penalty under Rule 26 was dropped and the appeal was allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
