Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
C.C.E., Rohtak vs M/S. Moonrise Metal Industries on 20 January, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI 110 066
Date of Hearing 20.01.2014
For Approval &Signature :
Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3.
Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
Seen
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
Yes
Appeal No. E/2299/2007 -EX[SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.250/SSS/RTK/2007, dated 25.04.2007 passed by C.C.E.(Appeals), Delhi-III]
C.C.E., Rohtak Appellants
Vs.
M/s. Moonrise Metal Industries Respondent
Appeal No. E/2300/2007 -EX[SM] [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.248/SSS/RTK/2007, dated 25.04.2007 passed by C.C.E.(Appeals), Delhi-III] C.C.E., Rohtak Appellants Vs. M/s. Ajanta Alloy & Strips Respondent Appearance Ms. Suchitra Sharma, DR - for the appellants Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate - for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Final Order Nos.50174-50175, dated 20.01.2014 Per Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa :
A very short issue is involved in both the present appeals filed by the Revenue. It is seen that imposition of penalties on the respondents was challenged by them before the Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the same on the ground that since the main appellant M/s. Jindal Industries, against whom demand was confirmed, has settled the dispute before the Settlement Commissioner, the benefit of the same would get extended to the co-noticees.
2. I find that the issue is no more res integra and by majority decisions in the case of SK Colombowala Vs. Commissioner [2007 (220) E.L.T. 492 (Trib)], it stands held that once main noticees dispute is settled by the Settlement Commission, it is settled in its entirety and such a case cannot be adjudicated qua other noticees. The said decision stands followed by the Tribunal in number of subsequent decisions. References can be made to the Tribunal decisions in the case of Pearl Polymers Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Raigad [2008 (226) E.L.T. (Tri. Mumbai)] and also in the case of Vijay R. Bohra Vs. C.C.E., Daman [2010 (260) E.L.T. 290 (Tri. Admd.)].
3. In as much as the disputes stand settled, I find no merits in the appeals filed by the Revenue and the same are accordingly rejected.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) SSK -2-