2006 (7) TMI 540 - Commission - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Settlement of duty liability for alleged clandestine removals of readymade garments, calculation errors in duty amount, request for immunities including waiver of interest, penalty, and prosecution, consideration of deemed credit under notification No. 54/2001-C.E. (N.T), cooperation of the applicant during proceedings.

Analysis:
1. Settlement of Duty Liability: The applicant, a partnership firm manufacturing readymade garments, filed an application for settlement of proceedings initiated through a Show Cause Notice demanding duty for alleged clandestine removals. The applicant admitted a duty liability of Rs. 20,11,438/-, attributing the difference to errors in calculation and payment of the admitted amount.

2. Calculation Errors: The applicant contested the department's calculation method for the duty amount, presenting a more scientific approach to determine the average value of garments sold. The Bench accepted the revised duty liability worked out by the applicant, considering the applicant's reasonable arguments and adherence to payment obligations.

3. Request for Immunities: The applicant sought immunities such as waiver of interest, penalty, and prosecution, emphasizing genuine mistakes made during the introduction of the levy in 2003. The revenue representative left the decision on immunities to the Bench, which observed the applicant's cooperation and granted various immunities based on the payments made during the investigation stage.

4. Deemed Credit Consideration: The applicant argued that duty was not paid initially as garments were manufactured by job workers, but they accepted the duty liability on behalf of the job workers and paid the full duty. The Bench allowed the applicant to avail deemed credit under a specific notification, highlighting the applicant's intention to rectify the situation rather than evade duty obligations.

5. Cooperation and Immunities: The Bench acknowledged the applicant's full cooperation during the proceedings and granted immunities from interest, penalty, and prosecution. The settlement terms included immunity for the main applicant and co-applicants, subject to compliance with specified conditions and provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

6. Conclusion: The settlement of duty liability, consideration of calculation errors, grant of immunities, and acceptance of deemed credit were pivotal aspects of the judgment. The Bench's decision reflected a balance between rectifying mistakes, acknowledging cooperation, and ensuring compliance with legal provisions for settlement in Central Excise matters.