Page 276 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

258 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

2020 (373) E.L.T. 258 (Tri. - Del.)
IN THE CESTAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
[COURT NO. IV]
Ms. Rachna Gupta, Member (J)
A.V. AGRO PRODUCTS LTD.
Versus
COMMR. OF CUS., C. EX. & CGST, NEW DELHI
Final Order Nos. A/50155-50157/2020-SM(BR), dated 15-1-2020 in Appeal
Nos. C/361-363/2010
Settlement of case - Effect of - Main noticee settling case - Co-noticee
cannot avoid adjudication - Merits of case against co-noticees to be examined
separately and only if co-noticees found to commit same offence as that com-
mitted by main noticee, settlement mechanism provides for settlement of en-
tire case as a whole - Where act of noticees separately and distinctly liable for
penal consequences, co-noticee not to automatically get penalty set aside on
ground that case of main noticee settled - Act committed by appellants being
act in addition to that those committed by remaining noticees, assessee not
entitled to blanket immunity - Settlement Commissioner granted liberty to
Revenue to take appropriate action against remaining noticees i.e. appellants
herein - Benefit of KVS Scheme not to be suo motu extended to appellants -
Section 127B of Customs Act, 1962. [2018 (359) E.L.T. 77 (Tribunal), 2019 (365)
E.L.T. 407 (Guj.) relied on]. [para 5]
Adjudication - Jurisdiction of Commissioner - Issue regarding misuse
of exemption extended under Serial No. 30 of Notification No. 20/2004-Cus. -
Case of import as well as diversion of imported goods in local market - Im-
porter intending to avail Cenvat credit and duty required acquire registration
from Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise having
jurisdiction over factory - Thereafter Assistant Commissioner or Deputy
Commissioner of Customs to allow benefit of exemption notification on the
basis of certificate given by Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner of
Excise - Commissioner of Central Excise, competent officer to issue notices -
Section 2(34) of Customs Act, 1962 - Rule 5 of Customs (Import of Goods at
Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996.
[2000 (126) E.L.T. 1256 (Tribunal) relied on]. [para 5]
Adjudication - Natural justice - Failure to put forth any defence de-
spite several effective opportunities of hearing given - Appellants seeking
several adjournment and not co-operative - Matter decided based on facts on
record and written reply received by respective noticee - Cross-examination
cannot be claimed as a matter of right or as statutory mandate specifically
when appellants were not even keen to submit their defence - Statement made
more in nature of confession and Section 9D of Central Excise Act, 1944 and
Section 138B of Customs Act, 1962 not applicable - No violation of principles
of natural justice. [2019 (368) E.L.T. 710 (Tribunal) relied on]. [para 5]
Penalty - Improper import of goods - Main noticee already acknowl-
edging guilt by approaching Settlement Commission - Statements on record in
corroboration of documents sufficiently establishing that appellants knowing-

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  276