https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209084 Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules against co-noticees was considered in light of the main noticee's settlement before the Settlement Commission, and the appellate authority's refusal to hear the matter without pre-deposit was found improper. The distinction drawn by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the settlement penalty imposed on the main noticee did not justify different treatment of the co-noticees. The appeals should have been decided on merits without insisting on pre-deposit, and the dismissal for non-compliance with the deposit direction was set aside with remand for fresh decision on merits. en-us Mon, 07 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209084 Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules against co-noticees was considered in light of the main noticee's settlement before the Settlement Commission, and the appellate authority's refusal to hear the matter without pre-deposit was found improper. The distinction drawn by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the settlement penalty imposed on the main noticee did not justify different treatment of the co-noticees. The appeals should have been decided on merits without insisting on pre-deposit, and the dismissal for non-compliance with the deposit direction was set aside with remand for fresh decision on merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 07 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209084