https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267954 A settlement authority cannot direct payment and appropriation of fine against a person where its own findings show that duty-related liability rested with a co-applicant and the record does not support such liability. The Bombay HC held that a direction requiring fine in lieu of confiscation, and appropriation from the petitioner's recovered amount, was inconsistent with the settlement order's conclusions under the Central Excise Act and was therefore beyond jurisdiction and legally unsustainable. That direction was quashed and the matter remitted to the Settlement Commission to redetermine any fine in accordance with law after hearing both applicants and the Revenue, while the remaining settlement findings were left undisturbed. en-us Mon, 10 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Jan 2016 11:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267954 A settlement authority cannot direct payment and appropriation of fine against a person where its own findings show that duty-related liability rested with a co-applicant and the record does not support such liability. The Bombay HC held that a direction requiring fine in lieu of confiscation, and appropriation from the petitioner's recovered amount, was inconsistent with the settlement order's conclusions under the Central Excise Act and was therefore beyond jurisdiction and legally unsustainable. That direction was quashed and the matter remitted to the Settlement Commission to redetermine any fine in accordance with law after hearing both applicants and the Revenue, while the remaining settlement findings were left undisturbed. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 10 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267954