https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442556 CESTAT held that once the main noticee (the Company) obtained a discharge certificate under the SVLDR Scheme, continuance of adjudication and imposition of penalty against co-noticee directors was unwarranted. The Tribunal found the co-noticee's failure to separately apply under the scheme a procedural lapse that did not cause revenue loss, and relied on the relevant CBIC circular and FAQs promoting scheme relief. The penalty and impugned order against the appellants were set aside and the appeal allowed. en-us Tue, 29 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Sep 2025 17:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442556 CESTAT held that once the main noticee (the Company) obtained a discharge certificate under the SVLDR Scheme, continuance of adjudication and imposition of penalty against co-noticee directors was unwarranted. The Tribunal found the co-noticee's failure to separately apply under the scheme a procedural lapse that did not cause revenue loss, and relied on the relevant CBIC circular and FAQs promoting scheme relief. The penalty and impugned order against the appellants were set aside and the appeal allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 29 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442556