2010 (10) TMI 218

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sultant, for the Appellant. Shri J.S. Negi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The appellant is challenging imposition of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed upon him under Rule 13 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 read with Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules. The appellant is a Director of M/s. Komal Automiser Pvt. Ltd. The dispute as regards wrong availment of CENVAT Credit to the extent of Rs. 26,5....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t above order, the appellate authority upheld the penalty. It stand observed by Commissioner (Appeals) that though the main noticee has settled the dispute before Settlement Commission, the same does not give any immunity to the present appellant from penalty. He observed that all the decisions relied upon by the appellant in support of the above contention are not applicable inasmuch as in all th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....een settled before Settlement Commission, no penalty could be imposed upon him, who is the Director of manufacturing unit. For the above proposition, he has relied upon Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of UOI v. Onkar S. Kanwar - 2002 (145) E.L.T. 266 (S.C.) and followed by Tribunal in catena of judgments listed below. (a)     M/s. Peral Polymers Pvt. Ltd v. CCE ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....;     M/s. Quality Fabricators & Erectors v. CCE - 2003 (159) E.L.T. 1123 (Tri-Del.) 5. I find that identical issue was considered by Tribunal in case of M/s S.K. Colombowala v. CC (Import), Mumbai - 2007 (220) E.L.T. 492 (Tri-Mumbai), wherein vide majority order, it was held that on settlement of dispute of main noticee by Settlement Commission, the cases against all c....