https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249441 Penalty on co-noticees for issuing fake invoices and abetting wrongful Cenvat credit remained contested where the main noticee had settled before the Settlement Commission and obtained immunity. One view held that settlement by the main noticee concluded the proceedings and, on earlier Tribunal decisions, the co-noticees' penalties could not survive. The contrary view held that immunity under settlement proceedings did not automatically extend to persons who were not before the Settlement Commission, especially where they were found to have independently ated in the fraudulent invoice chain and passing of credit. The Members disagreed on the result, and the matter was referred to the President for appropriate reference. en-us Mon, 24 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Jul 2014 10:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249441 Penalty on co-noticees for issuing fake invoices and abetting wrongful Cenvat credit remained contested where the main noticee had settled before the Settlement Commission and obtained immunity. One view held that settlement by the main noticee concluded the proceedings and, on earlier Tribunal decisions, the co-noticees' penalties could not survive. The contrary view held that immunity under settlement proceedings did not automatically extend to persons who were not before the Settlement Commission, especially where they were found to have independently ated in the fraudulent invoice chain and passing of credit. The Members disagreed on the result, and the matter was referred to the President for appropriate reference. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 24 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249441