TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the personal penalty imposed under the Central Excise law survives after the main noticee's duty liability and penalty are settled under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, and whether failure to file a separate declaration by the co-noticee defeats the benefit of the Scheme.
Analysis: The relief under the Scheme, particularly in cases relating only to penalty, is governed by the statutory scheme providing full relief from penalty or late fee. The requirement of filing a declaration is procedural, and where the main noticee has already obtained discharge under the Scheme, the co-noticee is not to be denied the benefit merely for not filing a separate declaration. The reasoning applied treats the declaration requirement as a formality that cannot defeat the substantive relief intended by the Scheme, especially where the only surviving liability is personal penalty.
Conclusion: The personal penalty could not survive and the appeal was entitled to succeed.
Final Conclusion: The impugned penalty order was set aside on the basis that the Scheme benefit extended to the appellant and the penalty could not be sustained once the principal dispute had been settled.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the main noticee has obtained discharge under the settlement scheme and the only remaining liability is personal penalty, the co-noticee cannot be denied statutory relief merely for not filing a separate declaration if the procedural requirement would defeat the substantive benefit intended by the Scheme.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
