TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 878
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gistered under Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994 for discharging the service tax liability payable by them. During the course of search of the office premises of the main noticee by DGCEI on 13.12.2013, various records viz., sample invoices agreements, tally printouts and other relevant documents were resumed and statement of Shri Bijay Kumar Pradhan, Vice-President (Finance & Accounts) [Appellant No. 1] of main noticee was recorded wherein he admitted that though they had collected Service tax from their clients/customers for the period 2011-12 to 2013-14 (up to November, 2013), they had not deposited the same with Government exchequer. Investigations by DGCEI revealed that the main noticee had charged and collected Service Tax from their customers but did not deposit in the Government exchequer during the period 2011-12 to 2013-14 (up to November, 2013). Investigations further revealed that they have also received input services from various service providers located outside India and did not pay Service Tax on the value paid for procuring such input services under reverse charge mechanism. The main noticee had also availed legal consultancy service and works contract services ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssion of facts. Learned counsel submitted that the main notice was the principal Noticee in the matter, had settled its liability under SVLDRS. Since the penalty imposed on the main noticee was waived in full, the penalty on the Appellant No. 1 & 2 would also not survive, as it was merely a consequential imposition. He submitted that various judicial precedents establish that where confirmed demand against the Main Noticee had been settled under SVLDRS, then no penalty will sustain even if the co-noticees have not filed any declaration under SVLDRS 2019. In this regard, learned Chartered Accountant relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shri V. K. Aggarwal & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST and Central Excise-Final Order No. 51139-51140/2023. 3.2 Learned Chartered Accountant further submitted that an application for waiver of Penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- had been filed by the two appellants, but a discharge certificate could not be obtained due to procedural lapses. However, the principle of consequential relief should apply in this case. The penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 78A of the Act, arose solely because of the penalty imposed on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt discharging the declarant from liability to pay any further tax/duty, interest, or penalty. The SVLDRS Scheme explicitly discharged the declarant from liability to pay any further tax, interest, or penalty in the matter. He contended that discharge and exoneration have different meanings in legal terminology. Discharge is done at a pre-trial stage i.e. before the commencement of legal proceedings, whereas exoneration is a final outcome oon the completion of legal proceedings. Thus the SVLDRS Scheme only discharged the declarant and does not exonerate the declarant. In the instant case, the appellants had been penalised under a separate Section 78A for being in charge and directly responsible in the Company for the contravention of the provisions of the Finance Act which clearly evident from their acceptance of tax liability under SVLDRS Scheme. In view of the above, learned AR prayed that the present appeals may be dismissed. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned authorised Representative for the Department. The issue involved in the present case is whether when the case of main appellant involved demand of duty interest and penalty has been s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scheme, the intent and purpose of the scheme being collection of the duty or some percentage thereof, and forgoing interest, fine and penalty, the disposal of the application of M/s JSW Ispat Steel Ltd renders the continuance of the penalty against the three appellants to be not in conformity with the relief scheme. Accordingly, they are eligible for erasure of the penalties against them. 7. For the above reasons, we allow these appeals and set aside the impugned order." • Subhash Panchal vide Final Order No. 11014 of 2024 dated 08.05.2024 "In this appeal the appellant has challenged the personal penalty of Rs.50,000/- under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The penalty was imposed on the charge of abating the evasion of duty by M/s. Atlas Plastics. When the matter was called out written submission was placed on record by the appellant wherein it is submitted that the main party's case of M/s. Atlas Plastics has been settled under SVLDRS 2019 and this Tribunal has disposed of appeal vide order No. 12602/2023 dated 07.11.2023 in the light of the settlement of the case of main party, hence the personal penalty of appellant be set aside....