VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL No. 141 OF 2007 Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai-III, Thane Appellant Vs. The Indian Smelting & Respondents Refining Co. Ltd. Mr. A. S. Rao with Ms. Bharti Mahant for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. CORAM : Dr. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, AND A. P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE : JUNE 6 2008. PC :- . Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appears for the respondent though served. Appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law- a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CESTAT is justified in deleting the penalty imposed upon the respondent only on the ground that M/s. Crompton Greaves went in KVSS and settled their dispute and hence the penalties against the Respondent and other co-noticees are liable to set - 2 - aside? b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CESTAT is justified in setting aside the penalty relying upon the judgment of the apex court in UOI Vs. Onkar Kanwar case reported in 145 EL T 266 wherein it was clearly held that "Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998- separate declaration by each entity - show cause notice for separate demand against the company and against its Directors/officers - Each entity/person to file settlement application separately - Declaration by the company does not cover tax arrears of its Directors/Officers-Immunity to Company under Section 91 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 1988 does not cover its Directors/Officers - KVSS (Removal of Difficulties under 199 B? c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CESTAT is justified in setting aside the penalty against the respondent when the respondent has not invoked the provisions of KVSS unlike M/s. Crompton Grieves who settled the matter under the scheme? 2. We have perused the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Onkar S. Union of India Vs. Onkar S. Union of India Vs. Onkar S. Kanwar Kanwar Kanwar [ 2002 (145) E.L.T. 266 (S.C.) [ 2002 (145) E.L.T. 266 (S.C.) [ 2002 (145) E.L.T. 266 (S.C.) wherein the the - 3 - Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 14 in no uncertain terms held that when there is a settlement made by the declarant, in the instant case M/s. Crompton Greaves, in that event the same settlement has to operate as full and final settlement in respect of all other persons on whom show cause notice was issued in respect of the same matter. Mr. A. S. Rao, does not dispute that the present respondent was a co-noticee in the above, as the main noticee in the above was M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. In the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no substantial question of law is involved in the above appeal. Hence, appeal is dismissed. Sd/- [ Dr. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ] Sd/- [ A. P.BHANGALE, J.]