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 personal penalties imposed on co-noticees under Section 26 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be sustained when the main noticee had settled the dispute under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.
Analysis: The Tribunal followed its earlier view that once the principal dispute stands settled under SVLDRS, 2019, appeals challenging personal penalties imposed on co-noticees arising from the same order cannot survive. The Tribunal also noted that the same approach had been applied in similar matters, leading to the conclusion that the penalty orders against the co-noticees were unsustainable.
Conclusion: The penalties imposed on the co-noticees were held to be unsustainable and were set aside.
Final Conclusion: The appellants succeeded and the impugned penalty order was annulled.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the main dispute is settled under SVLDRS, 2019, personal penalties imposed on co-noticees arising from the same adjudication cannot be sustained.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
