Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Sanjiv Goenka vs Bangalore-Iii on 23 January, 2025
Excise Appeal No. 20096 of 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 2
Excise Appeal No. 20096 of 2016
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. BLR-EXCUS-003-COM-11-15-16 dated
30.10.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Bangalore-III]
Shri Sanjiv Goenka
Managing Director
M/s. Crystal Granite and Marble Pvt. Ltd.
41KM, Bangalore-Mysore Road
Madapura Village
Ramanagaram District - 562 159 .....Appellant
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Excise
and Service Tax, Bangalore - III
P.B. No. 5400, Queens Road,
C.R. Buildings
Bangalore - 560 001 ....Respondent
Appearance:
None for the Appellant Mr. Neeraj Kumar, AR for the Respondent Coram:
Hon'ble P.A. Augustian, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Pullela Nageswara Rao, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 20183 / 2025 Date of Hearing: 23.01.2025 Date of Decision: 23.01.2025 Per: P.A. Augustian When the matter came up for hearing, none appeared for the appellant. Learned AR for the Revenue submits that the appeal of the main appellant in Central Excise Appeal No. 20095 of 2016 filed by Crystal Granite and Marble Pvt. Ltd. was disposed by this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 20363/2021 dated 22.06.2021, and the appeal was settled under SVLDRS.Page 1 of 3
Excise Appeal No. 20096 of 2016
2. The appellant in this case is Managing Director and since the appeal of the main appellant was settled under SVLDR Scheme, penalty imposed on co-noticee being the Managing Director of the main appellant is unsustainable. The Principal Bench of the Tribunal at New Delhi in the matter of V K Agarwal Vs. CC, New Delhi - (2024) 15 Centax 220 (Tri. Del) held that:-
"14. The judgements so referred clearly says that when the demand of duty has been settled under SVLDR Scheme, the imposition of penalty would fail on simple ground that if the appellants had applied under the said scheme, they would have paid 'nil' duty, in view of the relief available to them under section 124(1) (b) of the Finance Act. This Tribunal in similar circumstances has set aside the said penalty imposed in the case of Shri B.V. Kshatriya (supra). The relevant paragraph is given below:-
"3.2 Thereafter, on introduction of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019, the main noticee, M/s. Bhikusa Papers Pvt. Ltd. and other co-noticees settled the dispute under SVLDRS, but the present appellant, who is a director of the main noticee failed to opt under the Scheme. However, without considering the directions given in the remand order and allowing cross examination, Commissioner has imposed penalties on the appellant, just for reason that the appellant did not settle the issue along with others under SVLDRS. Such approach of Commissioner cannot be justified. Even if the appellant has not approached under SVLDRS, Commissioner should have adjudicated as directed by Tribunal. No justification for imposition Page 2 of 3 Excise Appeal No. 20096 of 2016 of penalty on reconsideration as per order of Tribunal is forthcoming."
3. Since the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the matter of VK Agarwal (Supra) and in the matter of M/s. Diamond Display Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore vide Final Order Nos. 20029-20031 of 2025 dated 22.01.2025 also, we decided the matter on similar ground, we do not find any reason to differ, hence Appeal of the Managing Director for dropping the penalty is allowed.
(Operative portion of the order was pronounced in Open Court on 23.01.2025) (P.A Augustian) Member (Judicial) (Pullela Nageswara Rao) Member (Technical) iss...
Page 3 of 3