9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Central Excise Department. Based on intelligence gathered, the officers of the DGCEI visited the factory premises of the applicant on 6-12-2001 and seized some documents/records. After perusal of the records and investigation, the impugned SCN has been issued alleging, inter alia, that the applicant had received yarn from customers without cover of any document and had returned them after carrying out certain processes raising processing charges and receiving payment in cash. It is further alleged that though the said conversion processes carried out by the applicant amounted to manufacture as per Note 2 to Chapter 55 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, no central excise duty was discharged. It is alleged that during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, very much within the knowledge of the C.E. department. He referred to the decision of the Principal Bench, C CESC in Re: Swadeshi Enterprises and chemical Industries Others 2002 (51) RLT 1111 (SET. COM.) wherein, the Principal Bench has inter alia, underlined the reasons for the requirement of filing of the returns as one of the conditions for entertaining an application. 5. Shri Kannappan reiterated the submissions made by the Joint Commissioner in his report C. No. V/55/15/116/2002 CX. ADJ. dated 22-4-2003 wherein, inter alia, he has stated that the applicant had not maintained proper accounts, records nor intimated the manufacturing process carried out in respect of certain quantity of goods received from some traders/part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, their BED and AED are shown as Nil on the strength of the same notification referred to above. The applicant has also stated that they were not availing Modvat. This declaration is nothing but Tariff classification of the excisable goods and the rate of duty leviable thereon. Even the mention of non-availment of Modvat is only in accordance with the requirement under condition (21) of the aforesaid Notification No. 5/99 relating to rate of duty. The so called declaration under the erstwhile Rule 173B no way gives any indication that the applicant was an SSI unit, that it was enjoying the SSI benefit or that it was claiming such a benefit. Admittedly, no other periodical return was filed. 8. In the order passed by the Principal Bench in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eclaration of SSI unit also serves the purpose of providing a basis for comparison to determine as to whether any fresh disclosure has been made in the settlement application and, if so, whether the said disclosure exceeded Rs. 2 lakhs - another condition prescribed under clause (c) of the first proviso to Sec. 32E(1). The Bench is, therefore, not convinced with the argument of the Chartered Accountant that applying the ratio of the order of the Principal Bench referred to above, the declaration filed under the erstwhile Rule 173B coupled with the fact that they had registered with the C.E. department should be sufficient to treat the application as satisfying the condition under clause (a) ibid. 9. Accordingly, since the application does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
