9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 587X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Central Excise, II Division, Chennai II Commissionerate. The applicant has submitted that they have received the said SCN for recovering an. amount of Rs. 17,87,271/- which is alleged to be the duty payable by the applicant for the month of October, 2002 and November, 2002. The applicant explained that this application is in continuation of their earlier application for settlement of an amount of Rs. 1,28,81,513/- settled by this Commission vide Admission-cum-Final Order No. 53/2005-CEX. According to the applicant, their factory at Ambattur, Chennai was being run by the Chief Executive Officer and Director, Shri Jayant Battacharjee who indulged in various irregularities which ultimately resulted in the Department demanding huge amounts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the application does not qualify under clause (C) of the first proviso to Section 32E(1) of the Central Excise Act. Further, recovery proceedings in terms of Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962 have been initiated. This application does not fit in the definition of case under Section 31(c) of the Act. Further, the Notice is only a notice of demand to a defaulter with a validity period of 7 days and the process of attachment/proclamation for sale of the property has already been initiated and no SCN was issued against the applicant as required under Section 32E(1) of the Central Excise Act. The assessee has not made any true disclosure and there is no disputed liability to file an application before the Settlement Commission. 3. During ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the absence of an SCN under Section 11A, the application fails to fulfill one of the conditions stipulated for admission of the application and hence, the application does not merit admission. It was also pleaded that this is not a case under Section 31(c) of the Central Excise Act. 6. We find that under Section 32E of the Act, show cause notice for recovery of duty issued by the Central Excise Officer should have been received by the applicant. In the present case, there is a Notice for recovery of Rs. 17,87,271/-from the Central Excise Officer issued on 18-2-2005. The proviso to Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not specify that the Show Cause Notice should be under Section 11A of the Act. It only says that the not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is no dispute that the liability arose in the month of November and December, 2002. It is also noticed from the documents that the applicant paid the amount only during November, 2005 which means, the applicant has clearly enjoyed the benefit for three years. In view of this, the Commission is of the view that they should pay interest on the amount for this period. Accordingly, the case is settled in terms of Section 32F(7) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as per the terms and conditions given below :- (I). The duty liability is settled at Rs.17,87,271/-. Since this was reported to have been paid no further duty is payable. (II). Immunity from interest in excess of 10% simple interest per annum is granted. The Revenue shall cal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
