TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1627
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere among others, a penalty of Rs.12,00,000/- was imposed on the appellant Shri Brij Kishor Choudhary, Proprietor of M/s. Choudhary Transport, Tuglakabad, New Delhi. Among others, Shri Brij Kishor Choudhary also filed Appeal No. E/713/2010 before this Tribunal against the impugned order. 2. In their appeal, the appellant took the following grounds:- * Learned Adjudicating Authority has imposed penalty by passing ex-parte order on the ground of non-filing of reply and non-appearance during personal hearing. In fact, they neither received the show cause notice nor any hearing notice, so they could not submit any reply. He also failed to follow judicial discipline as held by various Higher Forums like Hon'ble High Court and Tribunal before adjudication of the case. They rely on the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of J. B. Textile Inds. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Thane-II reported at 2007 (219) ELT 458. * The appellant relies on the following decisions:- a) Teksons Ltd. Versus Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay Reported At 2004 (165) E.L.T. 17 (Bom.), b) Rajesh Agarwal Versus Commissioner of Customs, Shillong Reported At 2002 (147) E.L.T. 725 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... j) Commissioner Of C. Ex. & Customs, Surat-II Vs. R.G. Agarwal Reported At 2009 (234) E.L.T. 215 (Guj.), k) Kamlesh Kumar Goel Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Thane-II Reported At 2008 (223) E.L.T. 65 (Tri. - Mumbai), l) Vandevi Texturisers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Surat Reported At 2007 (220) E.L.T. 289 (Tri. - Ahmd.), m) Commissioner Of C. Ex., Coimbatore Vs. Precot Mills Limited Reported At 2007 (212) Ε.Ε.Τ. 483 (Tri. - Chennai), n) Virlon Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Thane-II Reported At 2007 (211) E.L.T. 342 (Tri. - Mumbai) * An excessive penalty of Rs.12,00,000/- has been imposed on him in case involving Cenvat Credit of Rs.10,59,787/-. Looking bonafide of the appellant, penalty on him is not justified. He prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the penalty. 3. During hearing, Counsel of the appellant mentioned that the main appellant in the case M/s. Shriram Tubes Pvt. Ltd. has settled their case under Sabka Vishwas - (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 and accordingly, their appeal No. E/642/2010 filed against the impugned order has also been discharged by thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that once case of the main party is settled under SVLDRS, 2019, penalty on other co-noticees automatically goes away and therefore, impugned order may be set aside as far as penalty on the appellant Shri Brij Kishor Choudhary is concerned. I find that in this case there are total 21 co-noticees including the present appellant out of which some of conoticees have already settled their cases under SVLDRS. 5.1 Learned Advocate places reliance on some of the decisions to plead the matter in his favour but surprisingly, he omitted the decision dated 06.12.2022 of this Tribunal passed in the case of Vinod Bhadra who was one of the conoticees. This Tribunal in the case of Vinod Bhadra reported at (2023) 4 Centax 212 (Tri. Ahmd) decided the very same issue of imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on co-noticees involved in the case made against M/s. Shri Ram Tubes Pvt. Ltd. After considering various evidences against various co-noticees, this Tribunal dismissed their appeal(s) and upheld the penalty imposed on them by the Adjudicating Authority. Para 4 of the said decision is reproduced below:- 4.7 In case of Vinod Bhadra [(2023) 4 Centax 212 (Tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ills of entry. It was shown to have sent some of such consignment to M/s. Shree Ram Tubes Pvt. Ltd for job work as well as issued cenvatable invoices to Shree Ram Tubes Pvt. Ltd for sale of such imported consignments of copper ingots and coppers wires without physical movement of such goods. 4.3 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Maradia, Vice Chairman of M/s. Nissan Copper in his statement dated 31-8-2007 admitted that actually no goods were transported from M/s. Nissan copper (unit-1 & unit-2) to M/s. Shree Ram Tubes Pvt. Ltd. and only documents were given by them. By this it was established that there is only paper movement whereas no goods were supplied by M/s Nissan Copper to M/s. Shree Ram Tubes Pvt. Ltd. Most of the transportation of consignment covered in the central excise invoices as well job work challan issued by M/s. Nissan Copper was shown as transported through two transporters namely M/s. Bhadra Transport, Umbergaon and M/s. Balaji Transport, Silvassa. The investigation also reveals that M/s Balaji Transport was the fake firm created by Shri Sanjay Shantilal Maradia,Vice chairman of M/s. Nissan Copper. It is also the fact that Shri Sanjay S Maradia issued 5 Bogus LRs of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t credit by M/s. Shree Ram Tubes Pvt. Ltd., particularly when M/s. Shree Ram Tubes Pvt. Ltd. has admitted the liability of wrongly availed cenvat credit. Therefore, in my considered view the penalties imposed on the appellant is correct hence, the same is upheld. Appeals are dismissed." 4.8 We do not find any merits in this appeal. 5.1 Appeal is dismissed." 5.2 The issue of imposition of penalty on co-noticees under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, when main party's case is settled under SVLDRS, 2019, has recently been considered by CESTAT Allahabad in the case of Sushila Steel, Ghaziabad. Vide Final Order No.70620/2025 dated 15.07.2025, it held that each noticee has to approach separately under SVLDRS for settlement of their case if case against the main party is settled. The relevant paras of this judgement are reproduced below:- "4.3 It is now well settled that each person against whom penalties have been imposed needs to approach under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 independently and get the matter settled. Nothing has been placed on record to show that Appellant had approached under the said scheme. 4.4 I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....akar and Shri Jaykant Ambalal Patel, even though the statements were not recorded, the fact is not under dispute that they are the directors in the company and without their knowledge, this entire modus operandi cannot be concluded, therefore, even if any statement was not recorded, that too due to their non-cooperation in the investigation, they cannot be absolved from the penalty for the charge of abatement in evasion of excise duty by the company. The judgements relied upon by the appellant are on different facts. Penalty under Rule 26 is decided on the basis of the fact of each case depending on the role of the person which varies from case to case. Therefore, considering the fact of the present case, the judgments are not applicable. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order imposing penalty on the present appellants. Hence, the penalties are sustained. Appeals are dismissed." 4.5 Thus, appeal is considered on the merits. The impugned order records following finding against the Appellant:- "7.42. From the case records, I find that as per Annexure-A and B to the impugned Show cause Notice, the Noticee No. 4, 5 and 10 namely M/s Sushila Ste....