9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1728X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prosecution and imposed penalty on the assessee who make application under Section 32E before the Settlement Commission for adjudication of the escape excise duty or evasion of excise duty - In the present case, the petitioner who are the manufacturers of MS Billets suppressed 680.987 Mts Billets found un accounted and in excess of the production records shall be lapped with penalty - The petitioner has clandestinely removed the Billets to various of his buyers thereby escaping from the excise duty. The Settlement Commission exercising its powers under Section 32K of Central Excise Act 1944, imposed the penalty of ₹ 14,00,000 as penalty while granting immunity over the said penalty amount to the petitioner to the gravity offense committed by the petitioner s company suppressing 680.987 Millets procurement of raw materials and removing the same to various buyers thereby escaping from the duty payable by the petitioner is a very serious offense and the Settlement Commission has imposed 10% of the settled duty as penalty against the petitioner. This Court do not find any infirmity in such levy of the penalty as against the petitioner and the petitioner cannot claim exempti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r which the petitioner also agreed to do so. But the petitioner tried for the extension of cum-duty benefit in terms of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court, which the first respondent declined to extend the benefit and finally settled the duty imposed on the petitioner to the tune of ₹ 1,40,16,353/- in which the petitioner had already paid a sum of ₹ 84,92,315/- towards the admitted duty liability and the respondent directed the petitioner to pay the balance liability of ₹ 54,24,038 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the impugned order. As against which, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 5. From the records, it could be seen that the writ petition was admitted and the rule was ordered as early as 31-3-2008 and Mr. V. Sundareswaran for SPC appeared for the respondents. 6. On perusal of the documents available and the arguments put forth by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is not in dispute that the petitioner company is a manufacturer of MS Billets and based on the intelligent and it was able to intelligence by the petitioner s company, such operation was conducted in the petitioner s f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m duty and where the imposition of penalty is to be interfered by this Court. 10. It could be also seen from the records primarily with regard to the claim on cum duty, the petitioner requested for to extend the benefit of cum duty while calculating the duty payable by the petitioner. The conduct of the petitioner s company has to be looked into. The material evidence found during the investigation that 680.987 MT of MS Billets, were found unaccounted and in excess of production record, which is not denied by the petitioner and in fact admitting the offence, the petitioner had voluntarily paid an amount of ₹ 2,58,48,213/-. The petitioner had remitted ₹ 76,22,359/- after extending the benefit of cum duty. However, the benefit of cum duty was not accepted by the Settlement Commission for the only reason that the offense involved in the case of the petitioner was that the petitioner removed clandestinely Ms Billets, which is supported by the seizure of incriminating documents such as parallel sets of invoices, actual production documents indicating suppression of production, un accounted raw materials procurement details. The records clearly shows that the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on in cases where the proceedings for the prosecution for any such offence have been instituted before the date of receipt of the application under Section 32E. (2) An immunity granted to a person under Sub-Section (1) shall stand withdrawn if such person fails to pay any sum specified in the order of the settlement passed under [sub- Section (5) of Section 32F within the time specified in such order], or fails to comply with any other condition subject to which the immunity was granted and there upon the provisions of this Act shall apply as if such immunity had not been granted. (3) An immunity granted to a person under Sub-Section (1) may, at any time, be withdrawn by the Settlement Commission, if it is satisfied that such person had, in the course of the settlement proceedings, concealed any particular material to the settlement or had given false evidence, and thereupon such person may be tried for the offence with respect to which the immunity was granted or for any other offence of which he appears to have been guilty in connection with the settlement and shall also become liable to the imposition of any penalty under this Act to which such person would hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
