9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (4) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On 17-8-96, the Preventive Staff of the Central Excise Division, Raipur intercepted a truck bearing No. CIR-8727 on Ring Road No. 2, Raipur. The truck was found to carry 21.345 MTs of MS ingots without cover of any Central Excise invoice, as required under Rule 52A of the Rules evidencing payment of Central Excise duty. Due investigations were made and statements were recorded. Shri R. Venugopalan, Company Representative has appeared on behalf of the appellant and he has drawn my attention towards paras 12 to 13.2 of the Order-in-Original at pages 31 to 33 of the paper book wherein it is recorded as under : "12. M/s. Hi Tech Abrasives Ltd., Raipur (C.G.) had made a declaration under Section 88 of the Finance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction (2) of Section 90 read with Section 91 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998. The designated authority issued the certificate vide letter F. No. IV(10)43/KVSS/98/CX/10266, dated 20-4-99 to the party No. 1. (a) Certifying the receipt of payment from the declarant towards settlement of tax arrears determined in the order dated 26-2-99 on the declaration made by the party No. 1. (b) granting immunity, subject to the provisions contained in the Scheme, from instituting any proceedings for prosecution for any offence under Central Excise Act, 1944 or from the imposition of penalty under the said enactment in respect of that part of the SCN which is settled under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme as aforesaid (without prejudice to the action to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 20-4-99 at page 55 from clause 5 sub-clause (b), it is seen that while issuing the certificate, it is stipulated that the proceedings initiated under the show cause notice in regard to the seized goods would continue and the show cause notice would be adjudicated by the appropriate adjudicating authority for decision in due course. Thus, it makes amply clear that no full and final settlement appears to have been made under the KVSS. As such, the contention raised by Shri Venugopalan cannot be sustained. Since no other point has been raised, I am of the opinion that this is not a case of double jeopardy and as such I do not find any reasons to interfere with the order passed by the adjudicating authority particularly when it is seen th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
