2002 (4) TMI 382 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Original dated 31-5-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur involving the interception of goods without proper documentation, settlement under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, and the question of double jeopardy.

Interception of Goods without Documentation:
The appellants manufactured steel shots, grits, and MS ingots and were availing Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. On 17-8-96, a truck carrying 21.345 MTs of MS ingots without the required Central Excise invoice was intercepted by the Preventive Staff. Investigations revealed duty short paid on the intercepted goods. The appellant contended that the matter had been settled under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, but the Revenue argued that the present adjudication was not covered by the settlement, leading to the question of double jeopardy.

Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme Settlement:
The Commissioner had determined a payable amount considering the duty short paid on the intercepted goods, which was partially settled by the appellant under TR-6 Challan No. 17. A certificate was issued certifying the receipt of payment and granting immunity from prosecution or penalty under the Central Excise Act, subject to Scheme provisions. However, the certificate specified that proceedings regarding the seized goods would continue and be adjudicated separately, indicating no full and final settlement under the Scheme.

Double Jeopardy and Adjudication:
The appellant argued double jeopardy based on a previous decision and settlement under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. However, the Tribunal found that the proceedings related to the seized goods, where duty was not quantified, were yet to be decided. The Tribunal noted that no full and final settlement had been made under the Scheme, as indicated in the certificate issued. Since the same officer was involved in both the adjudication and the Scheme, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concluding that this was not a case of double jeopardy and upheld the order passed by the adjudicating authority.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that no full and final settlement had been reached under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme regarding the intercepted goods, and therefore, the question of double jeopardy did not apply. The separate adjudication for the seized goods was deemed necessary, and since the same officer handled both the adjudication and the Scheme, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the original order.