2005 (1) TMI 623 - Commission - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Application for settlement based on belated filing of returns under the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis:
The case involved an application for settlement by M/s. Chakola Ayurvedics Limited regarding proceedings initiated against them for alleged clearances without central excise registration. The applicant had paid a portion of the demanded duty before the issue of show-cause notice (SCN). The Settlement Commission rejected their earlier application on the grounds of not filing monthly returns during the relevant period as required by law. The rejection was based on the provision that no settlement application can be made without filing returns showing production, clearances, and duty paid. Despite crossing the duty exemption limit, the applicant had delayed filing the necessary returns, leading to the rejection of the initial application.

In a subsequent attempt for settlement, the applicant filed belated returns for the relevant period and sought indulgence from the Commission, citing being misdirected by their previous counsel. The Revenue representative argued that the belated return was merely acknowledged and not accepted. The Commission noted that the essential requirement for admission to settlement is the proper filing of returns as per Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The rule mandates the submission of monthly or quarterly returns depending on the exemption availed. Failure to comply with this substantial legal provision led to the rejection of the application once again.

The Commission emphasized that the belated filing of returns cannot rectify the earlier non-compliance with the law's requirements. Despite pleas of being misdirected and being a young entrepreneur, the applicant's failure to meet the legal obligations regarding return filing rendered the application ineligible for settlement. The Commission directed the applicant to participate in adjudication proceedings before the competent authority to seek relief according to the provisions of the law. The decision underscored the importance of strict adherence to legal requirements for settlement applications, irrespective of mitigating circumstances or personal attributes of the applicant.