2014 (10) TMI 861 - Commission - Central Excise

Maintainability of application with Settlement Commission - Outstanding Central Excise duty - non-compliance of the provisions of clause (d) of proviso to Section 32E(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as the applicant has not paid the entire admitted duty liability besides not quantified the interest and paid the same - Held that - The Bench considers that the application is not maintainable and liable for rejection for non-compliance of the provisions of clause (d) of proviso to Section 32E(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 since the additional amount of duty accepted by the applicant in his application should be paid along with interest due under Section 11AA. Accordingly, the Bench rejects the application under Section 32F(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the applicant is at liberty to approach this Commission after complying with the requirements of provisions of Section 32E(1)(d) ibid.

Summary

Issues:
Application for settlement under Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Non-compliance with statutory requirements - Rejection of application under Section 32F(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The case involved an application for settlement under Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by M/s. Chiral Biosciences Ltd. and co-applicants. The application was in response to a Show Cause Notice demanding Central Excise duty, interest, and penalty. The applicants were issued a notice under Section 32F(1) directing them to explain non-compliance with the provisions of the Act. The applicants cited financial difficulties and the unavailability of their Managing Director as reasons for non-fulfillment of statutory requirements. The Settlement Commission was required to either allow the application to proceed or reject it within fourteen days. The Bench found the application not maintainable due to non-compliance with the provisions of the Act, specifically clause (d) of proviso to Section 32E(1), which required payment of the admitted duty liability along with interest. Consequently, the application was rejected under Section 32F(1), but the applicant was given the option to reapply after meeting the statutory requirements of Section 32E(1)(d).

In the final order, the Bench officially rejected the application filed by the applicant under Section 32F(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The rejection was based on the non-compliance with the statutory provisions, particularly the failure to pay the additional duty accepted in the application along with the corresponding interest. The applicant was advised to approach the Commission again after fulfilling the necessary requirements outlined in Section 32E(1)(d) of the Act.