Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.19 seconds)

Union Of India & Ors vs Onkar S. Kanwar & Ors on 27 September, 2002

From the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Apex Court, it is clear that only when the tax arrear arises from the same matter (emphasis supplied), then the declaration made by the principle noticee will cover all other persons against whom show cause notice has been issued. In the instant case, heavy penalty of Rs. 15,00,000 has been levied upon the Petitioner on account of his involvement in fabricating bogus documents with which the main noticee M/s. Choice Laboratories was not concerned at all. Therefore, when the penalty imposed upon the main noticee and the co-noticee arise from distinct and separate causes of action, merely because a common show cause notice has been issued, it cannot be said that the partial declaration /settlement made by the main noticee will be applicable to the Petitioner. In the light of the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Apex Court, the Petitioner herein cannot succeed because, firstly, there is no total settlement and secondly, the penalty levied upon the main noticee and the Petitioner, do not arise from the same matter but arise from different causes of action. Mr. Bulchandani drew our attention to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above case to the effect that if two views are possible, then the view which is in favour of the assessee must be adopted. In our opinion, in the instant case where there is only partial settlement and the penalty levied upon the main noticee and the Petitioner are based on separate causes of action, the only view that can be taken in the instant case, is that the settlement of the main noticee will not be available to the Petitioner."
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 97 - S N Variava - Full Document

Yogesh Korani vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 8 October, 2002

17. A related question that remains to be considered is whether the appeals of the revenue have to be rejected, and penalties imposed on other parties vacated in those cases of imports where owners of the cars have settled the cases against them under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (in Appeals No. C/337/94-A,C/803/93-A, C/330/94-A, C/804/93-A, C/295, C/777/93-A, C/751/93-A, C/247/94-A and C/778/93-A). The contention of the revenue is that these cases come under the exception contained in proviso to Section 92 of Finance Act, 1998 and as revenue is in appeal pleading for increase of duty liability these settlements would have no effect on the revenue's appeal. Further, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Yogesh Korani v. Union of India, 2003 (159) ELT 3 (Bom), the penalties on Shri Futehally and importers would not be affected by the said settlements under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme as offences of Shri Futehally and importers are different from the offence of the buyers. Shri Futehally has relied upon several decisions to support his plea that appellate proceedings have to fail. We are in agreement with the revenue on this issue. Revenue's appeals are protected by the proviso to Section 92. Shri Futehally and the importers are not entitled to get any relief. This position in made clear by the decision of the Bombay High Court. We read para 20 of that judgment.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 6 - J P Devadhar - Full Document
1