Tribunal Dismisses Appeal as Infructuous; Overturns Penalties on Executives After Settlement Under SVLDRS 2019 Scheme.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the confiscation and clearance of seized goods as infructuous, due to the settlement under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS). Additionally, the penalties imposed on the CEO and M.D. of M/s. Diamond Display Solutions Pvt. Ltd. were overturned. The Tribunal followed the precedent that when the main demand is settled under the SVLDR Scheme, penalties on co-noticees are unsustainable. Consequently, the appeals of the company executives were allowed.

---

---

ISSUES:

• Whether confiscation of seized goods is justified when clearance is allowed on imposition of redemption fine and penalty.
• Whether the penalty imposed on the CEO and Managing Director under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is sustainable after settlement of the main demand under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme (SVLDRS).

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

• The appeal concerning confiscation of seized goods and imposition of redemption fine and penalty is rendered infructuous due to settlement of the main demand under SVLDRS and is accordingly disposed.
• The penalties imposed on the CEO and Managing Director under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 are unsustainable once the main appellant has settled the demand under SVLDRS; the Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by them.

RATIONALE:

• The Tribunal relied on the legal framework under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, which provides relief under section 124(1)(b) of the Finance Act, allowing settlement of legacy disputes with nil duty payment in certain cases.
• The Tribunal followed precedent from a prior decision holding that imposition of penalty fails when the main demand is settled under SVLDRS, as the relief available negates the basis for penalty.
• The Tribunal emphasized that penalties on co-noticees cannot be sustained if they did not independently opt for SVLDRS but the main demand was settled, and that the Commissioner's imposition of penalty without proper adjudication or consideration of SVLDRS directions was unjustified.

---