https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237150 Settlement of the principal noticee's dispute before the Settlement Commission was treated as conclusive for the case as a whole, so independent penalty proceedings against the co-noticee under Rule 26 could not survive on the same facts. The reasoning was that the settlement mechanism gives finality to matters covered by the settlement order and bars reopening of those matters. A contrary later Division Bench view was rejected as factually and legally distinguishable. On that basis, the co-noticee's penalty was held unsustainable and set aside. en-us Wed, 01 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Sep 2013 11:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237150 Settlement of the principal noticee's dispute before the Settlement Commission was treated as conclusive for the case as a whole, so independent penalty proceedings against the co-noticee under Rule 26 could not survive on the same facts. The reasoning was that the settlement mechanism gives finality to matters covered by the settlement order and bars reopening of those matters. A contrary later Division Bench view was rejected as factually and legally distinguishable. On that basis, the co-noticee's penalty was held unsustainable and set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 01 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237150