https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766734 Penalty on a co-noticee under Rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 does not survive where the main demand against the principal noticee has been settled under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. CESTAT noted that the principal dispute had been disposed of as withdrawn under Section 127(6) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019, and applied its earlier view that settlement of the main demand extinguishes the basis for co-noticee penalty. The penalty on the appellant, a broker and transporter arranger, was therefore held unsustainable and set aside, and the impugned order was annulled. en-us Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Mar 2025 07:12:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766734 Penalty on a co-noticee under Rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 does not survive where the main demand against the principal noticee has been settled under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. CESTAT noted that the principal dispute had been disposed of as withdrawn under Section 127(6) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019, and applied its earlier view that settlement of the main demand extinguishes the basis for co-noticee penalty. The penalty on the appellant, a broker and transporter arranger, was therefore held unsustainable and set aside, and the impugned order was annulled. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766734