9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly thereafter on 14.7.2000 and 20.7.2000, indicated the reason why they could not pay the duty earlier. Furthermore, the Settlement Commission noted that there are no other mala fides. Thus, on facts, the Settlement Commission has taken a decision on the first respondent's application, wherein the first respondent has accepted the entire duty liability and also noted the fact that after the first ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, challenging the order passed by the second respondent viz., Customs and Central Excise, Settlement Commission. 3. The first respondent herein filed an application before the Settlement Commission stating that they have manufactured and cleared passenger car parts falling under Chapter heading 8708 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India was concluded and signed only on 13.7.2000. On being pointed out, they remitted the entire amount, by debiting RG23A Part II on 14.7.2000 and 20.7.2000 and they stated that they are willing for appropriation of the amount already paid towards duty demanded in the show cause notice. The first respondent vide their letter dated 11.10.2003 accepted the entire duty liability and also agreed for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herein the first respondent has accepted the entire duty liability and also noted the fact that after the first respondent agreed for the appropriation, only after a period of about three years, show cause notice was issued. Thus, in the light of the factual finding recorded by the Commission, this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not act as if it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
