9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd penalty could be imposed in the same matter was not correct. It has been prayed by the Revenue that the mistake which was apparent on the record be rectified by recalling and setting aside the said final order dated 31-8-2000. 2. We have heard Ms Ananya Ray, SDR, for the Revenue and Shri R. Krishnan, Advocate, for the respondents, M/s. Kedia Great Galleon Ltd. and have gone through the facts on record. 3. Under show cause notice dated 12-12-1997, Central Excise duty had been demanded on the Khandsari Molasses procured by the respondents for manufacture of liquor. The demand of Central Excise duty was in two parts. Firstly, duty was demanded on the Khandsari Molasses which was available on 17-6-1997 when the Central Excise Officers vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . With regard to the imposition of penalty also, the Tribunal noted that the allegations regarding non-payment of duty and imposition of penalty were the subject matter of the show cause notice which had been settled under the KVSS. In these circumstances, it was considered that separate imposition of penalty was also not called for in view of the express provision of the KVSS. 5. We have again gone through the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. Under the KVSS, the declaration under Section 88 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 could be filed by a declarant after a show cause notice has been issued to him on or before 31st March, 1998. In relation to the indirect tax enactment, tax arrears in terms of Section 87(m)(ii)(b) of the above Act of 1998 m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for KVSS before the adjudication and after the issue of the show cause notice, their reply to the show cause notice is deemed to have been withdrawn in terms of Section 90(4) of the above mentioned Act. They had already settled the matter after payment of duty as determined under Section 88(f)(ii). 8. As the respondents have already deposited the amount as determined and as there was nothing in the KVSS about the fine with regard to the seized goods and as the duty on the seized goods had already been paid, the Tribunal considered that the show cause notice could not survive even for the limited purpose of fine and penalty. The duty on the seized goods had already been paid and at the stage of the declaration no penalty had been imposed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
