2023 (5) TMI 858

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....39;ble CESTAT vide its order no. A/85191- 85192/2018 dated 30.01.2018 with certain directions for fresh adjudication. However, when the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) was launched by the Government, the main noticee M/s Bhikusa Paper (P) Ltd. and six co-noticees filed applications under the scheme. Subsequently, their applications were accepted and after fulfilling the conditions of the scheme, the penalties imposed on them were waived. However, three co-noticees namely Shri B.V. Kshatriya, Director, M/s Raj Sales Corporation and M/s Vishal Pakaging Industries failed to file applications under the scheme. Since, there is no provision in the SVLDRS that if main noticee applies for and gets benefit of the SVLD....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e act that would render him liable for penalty, for which the appellant should have been absolved of its liability. The appellant contended that when the main noticee has got waiver of penalty under SVLDRS, the penalty imposed on him is not justified. In support, he relies on the following decisions:- V. Abdul Rehman Musalia [2001 (133) ELT 145 (Tri.- Bang.)] D.P. Kothari [2001 (135) ELT 669 (Tri.-Del.)]. 3.1 I find that the matter was earlier remanded by the Tribunal vide order No. A/85191-85192/18 dated 30.01.2018. Tribunal while remanding has observed as follows:- "5. WE find that the demand has been made against the Appellant on the ground that they have wrongly claimed the benefit of exemption notification no. 83/94 by sho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ll the above aspects cannot be gone into at this stage including the clearances contended by the Appellant to be not includible for calculation of duty. We also find that it has been settled in various Judgments as cited by the learned Counsel that while determining the duty, the cum duty benefits should be extended to the assessee. We also find that the adjudicating authority have not examined the fact whether there is a suppression of facts or otherwise. Accordingly, the issue of limitation was also not considered properly. 6. We therefore consider it fit to remand back the case to the adjudicating authority to consider the case afresh after granting the opportunity of cross examining the persons who were not made available for cross e....