Judgment Rajesh Bindal, J. 1. The Revenue has filed present petition under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short the Act) for a direction to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, the Tribunal) for reference of following question of law to this Court for opinion, arising out of order passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No. E/S/1967/00-N.B.(SM) dated 7-2-2001 : Whether the CEGAT was correct in giving relief to Sh. Surinder Kumar Garg, Director of M/s. Delta Insecticides to under CBEC Circular F. No. 275/33/98-CX 8A (Pt) dated 8-12-98 which is clarificatory circular in respect of cases where show cause notices were issued on or before 31-3-98 but not adjudicated where as in the instant case the case was adjudicated and Central Excise duty was quantified by way of imposing penalty on Sh. Surinder Kumar Garg on 28-12-97 as co-noticee well before 31-3-98? 2. Briefly the facts are that the respondent assessee was Director of company M/s. Delta Insecticides, Bhahdurgarh. The Deputy Commissioner (Central Excise), Gurgaon vide order-in-original dated 28-10-1997 confirmed a demand of Rs. 4,87,131/- on the M/s. Delta Insecticides besides levying a penalty of Rs. 4,87,000/-. In addition to this, penalty of Rs. 4,80,000/- was levied on the respondent-assessee being Director of the aforesaid company for his acts of omission and commission. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 22-8-2000 held that the case regarding demand of duty and penalty against the aforesaid company was settled under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 vide order passed by the Commissioner on 23-4-1999. As far as the appeal of the respondent-assessee is concerned, the amount of penalty was reduced to Rs. 3 lakhs. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the respondent-assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 29-1-2001 set aside the penalty in totality. The Revenue has sought the question of law arising out of the aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the benefit of the order passed in the case of the company under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 could not be given to the respondent-assessee as the same was not applicable to him. However, we do not find any merit in the submissions made. 3. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the benefit of the order passed in the case of the company under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 could not be given to the respondent-assessee as the same was not applicable to him. However, we do not find any merit in the submissions made. It is not disputed that it was the company which was allegedly found to be evading duty on account of which duty and penalty was levied thereon. The penalty was levied on the respondent-assessee on his being a Director of the Company, as he being incharge of the affairs of the company was also held liable for penal action. Once the dispute with the company itself was settled under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 nothing remained against the respondent-assessee. The Tribunal relied upon an earlier order passed by it in case of Quality Fabricators and Erectors [2003 (159) E.L.T. 1123 (Tri.-Del.)], which was never challenged by the department. Even the contention regarding non-applicability of the circular is also meritless. It clearly provides that once the settled, amount is paid, the person making declaration gets complete waiver from any other liability including penal action. In the case in hand it is the admitted position on record that the declaration made by the company for settlement under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 was accepted and the amount of duty paid. In this view of the matter, the penal action was completely waived off even against the respondent-assessee on account of alleged evasion of duty by the company. 4. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any question of law arises in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.