9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral Excise Authorities under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules. The Applicant purchase Steel Bars, Rods from the market and thereafter processed the same in his factory by peeling, cutting, grinding, straightening, brightening etc., and manufactures Bright Steel Bars as final product which were sold to various customers. Following some information the Applicants came under investigation by Central Excise Authorities of Jamshedpur Commissionerate, and it was found that Applicant had used duplicate invoices of the same numbers for selling goods to TELCO, Pune and some other parties. The invoices, on which goods were sent to TELCO, Pune and some other parties in Pune, even though mentioned the duty amount, these duties were never paid, nor any Central Excise records were kept for such clearances by the Applicant. The Central Excise Authorities cross-checked with TELCO authorities at Pune and it was discovered that even though payment for this consignments, including duty payment, was made by cheques to M/s. Jaiswal Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., Jamshedpur, the latter did not actually pay any duty, nor maintained any Central Excise records. After investigation, it was found that to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring was fixed on 23rd April, 2001. 3. The Applicants were again heard on 23rd April, 2001 and same consultants and directors were present on behalf of the Applicant and on behalf of the Commissionerate, Shri L.P. Gupta, Supdtt., represented the case. The Advocate of the Applicant submitted that in pursuance of the directions of the Settlement Commission, they had submitted their amended application on 18th April, 2001. accepting duty liability of Rs. 60.22,912.65 and praying that payment may be allowed to be made in twelve equal monthly installments due to financial hardships being faced by the Company on account of non-recovery of dues from their clients. The Bench asked the Applicant to submit proof in support of their claim for making the payment in installments. The Advocate then submitted Balance Sheet as well as the Profit Loss Accounts of the Company for the last two years which supported their contention. The Bench pointed out to the Applicant that they had received payment from TELCO and other clients through cheques and the same amount was credited with them. The Advocate replied to this by saying that the amount received by the Company has since been spent in many o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ady been deposited towards demands raised for reversal of credit. The application was heard on 23-8-2001 and after hearing both the applicant and the Revenue, the Commission directed the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise to supply a certified copy of the Admission Order to the concerned Commissioners of Central Excise in whose jurisdictional the goods cleared by the applicant were received. The Jurisdictional Commissioner was also directed to supply details of the payments made so far by the applicant in pursuance to the Admission Order. 7. The Applicant, however, could not deposit the full amount in time as ordered by the Commission and made an application for further time to deposit the amount. They were heard for this purpose on 22-1-2002 when Shri K. Kumar, Advocate and Shri M.S. Gupta, Consultant appeared for the Applicant and Shri P.G. Samanta, Dy. Commissioner and Shri Vivek Prasad, US, TRU and Shri L.P. Gupta, Supdtt. attended on behalf of Revenue. It was submitted by the Applicant that they could not make full payment of the admitted duty liability as per directions of the Commission due to their poor financial position. They made last payment in October, 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the concerned Commissioner as directed by the Commission. The applicants have paid the full amount of accepted duty. The Applicant also informed that they had calculated the interest @ 10% which came to Rs. 12,17,973.60. The Applicant, however, further submitted that the Revenue had agreed to adjusted only Rs. 1,71,952/- and the further amount of Rs. 1,10,392.94 was not adjusted by Revenue. They explained that this has required to be adjusted by Revenue. 10. Speaking on behalf of Revenue, the officer submitted that they had not made necessary inquiries whether the goods were rejected by TELCO or not and that is why they were not able to adjust the entire amount as claimed by the Applicant. According to the Revenue, the interest calculation should he @ 24% and which amounted to Rs. 40,52,491.70 and that the Applicant had so far paid only Rs. 60,22,913/- in pursuance to Commission s order, even though their total liability comes to Rs. 61,33,151.59/- On points of immunity the Revenue submitted that since the Applicant s had committed fraud, they were not eligible for any immunities and some penalty along with interest must be imposed on them. 11. We have carefully considered the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on liability submitted before the Commission that on account their own foolishness in following wrong advice, they had suffered a loss of Rs. 43.00 lakhs by way of the credit of duty on their inputs which they would have availed if they had accounted for the goods manufactured out of such inputs and cleared after accounting them rather than keeping the entire production of such goods unaccounted. It is also submitted by the Applicant that they have made full disclosure of their liability, though, in their original Application they had confined their disclosure to Rs. 17.25 lakhs. It is also submitted that in spite of very severe financial constraints, they have deposited the entire amount of Rs. 60,22,913.00 as accepted by them in their amended Application dated 18-4-2001. It is also submitted that they have fully cooperated in the proceedings before the Commission and, therefore, they should be allowed immunities under Section 32K of the Act. 14. Section 32K of the Act provides for power of grant of immunity from prosecution, penalty, fine and interest with respect to the case covered by the settlement. We are satisfied with the disclosure and the cooperation of the Applicant. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
