9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Applicant. Shri S.D.V. Rajkumar, Deputy Commissioner, for the Department. [Order]. M/s. Karur KCP Packaging Limited, Units I and II, 112, Thiruvandar Koil, Mannadipet Commune, Pondicherry - 605 102 (hereinafter referred to as the applicants ) have filed two applications for settlement of the proceedings initiated against them in Show Cause Notices No. IV/16/130/2003-UCD and No. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 2003 on the due dates. According to the applicant, the duty amounts have since been paid by both the units. 3. Shri N. Venkataraman, Advocate and Shri V. Sudharson, DGM (C) appeared on behalf of the applicant-company, while the Revenue was represented by Shri S.D.V. Rajkumar, Deputy Commissioner, Pondicherry-I Division in the hearing on 21-9-2005 Shri N. Venkataraman, Advocate pleaded that un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s further elaborated this point. He stated that the applicant has approached the Settlement Commission only because of the deemed non-payment of duty. He further cited the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Gannon Dunkerley Co. v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1993 (88) S.T.C. 204 (S.C.) wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court has laid down the meaning of deeming provision . Since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Commission for settlement. 5. The Bench has considered the submissions from both sides. There is no doubt that if any duty has not been paid within the time limits specified in the Central Excise Rules, the relevant goods are deemed to have been clandestinely cleared, rendering the goods liable to confiscation and the assessee liable to penalty. 6. Since the SCN has mentioned the amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ability in their monthly declaration and in their present application, they have only admitted the very same liability. No additional amount has been disclosed or accepted by the applicant in their applications. Therefore, it is found that their applications do not meet the conditions of admission in terms of Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 8. In view of this, this Bench is of the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
