TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (2) TMI 122
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 of Notification No.23/03-CE dated 31/03/2003 as is applicable to the said 100% EOU. On subsequent investigation carried out against the supplier, it was found that the said supplier was not eligible for payment of duty as per Sl.No.3 of Notification No.23/03-CE but was required to pay duty as per Sl.No.2 of Notification No.23/03-CE. On this factual matrix, the appellant having availed the ineligible Cenvat credit was issued a show cause notice for the same and they were also directed to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed on them in terms of Rule 13 (1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The adjudicating authority after hearing the contentions of the appellant confirmed the demand and appropriated the amount of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mbai as reported at 2007-TIOL-1130-CESTAT-MUM. 5. Ld. SDR on the other hand would contend that the availment of ineligible Cenvat credit is accepted by the appellants and as such, provisions of Rule 13 would be directly applicable. It is his submission that the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. On the other hand, is on the lower side and there should be enhancement of penalty. He submits that the settlement of the case by the supplier - 100% EOU would not mean that the appellant is to be let off. He reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority. 6. Considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. 7. It is undisputed that the sup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect I may read the ratio. "The appellants herein did not file any application before the Settlement Commission and they claimed that they were not even aware of an application having been filed by the importer before the Settlement Commission. To my mind, the consequence of final order of settlement passed by the Settlement Commission in the case of Amrit Laxmi is that the case, i.e. the show cause notice issued to the importer as well as the co-noticees (including the appellants) stood finally settled and closed. The scheme of settlement does not contemplate a situation where a case is settled partly for some applicants and remains pending for others. Reading of the provision relating to settlement makes it clear that only an importer (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cannot be imposed, as the order of settlement does not contain any finding to the effect that the goods were liable to confiscation under Sec.111". The points of difference are therefore, are answered as under:- (a) While the provisions of KVS Scheme and those relating to settlement of cases under the Customs Act are not completely identical, the underlying objective in both the scheme is similar and it is for this reason that the case laws in respect of cases under KVSS including in the case of Onkar S. Kanwar do not become entirely irrelevant. (b) The question as to who played the main role is irrelevant for the reason that once the case is settled by the Settlement Commission, it is settled in its entirety and such a case then c....