9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sequently again on 07.03.2013. It is seen that Clause (ii) (iii) of sub-Section 106 (2) prescribes that, where summon has been issued 14 of Central Excise Act 1944, the person becomes in eligible for the scheme. In the instant case, it is noticed that a summon was issued to the appellant on 28.03.2012 much prior to the cut off date of 01 March 2013. Moreover, it is also informed to the court by the Learned Counsel that the subsequently a demand SCN was issued to the appellant in the same proceedings which were initiated by said summons. In view of above the appellants were rightly held ineligible for the scheme. There are no error in the impugned order. The appeal is therefore dismissed. - HON'BLE MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) , MR. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ises under section 82 of the Chapter; or (ii) issuance of summons under section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), as made applicable to the Chapter under section 83 thereof; or (iii) requiring production of accounts, documents or other evidence under the Chapter or the rules made thereunder; or (b) an audit has been initiated, and such inquiry, investigation or audit is pending as on the 1st day of March, 2013, then, the designated authority shall, by an order, and for reasons to be recorded in writing, reject such declaration. 2.1 He argued that in the instant case inquiry was initiated against M/s. Adani and summon was issued to the appellant on 28.03.2012 and 07.03.2013. Learned Counsel argued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sons to be recorded in writing, reject such declaration. 4.1 It is seen that Clause (ii) (iii) of sub-Section 106 (2) prescribes that, where summon has been issued 14 of Central Excise Act 1944, the person becomes in eligible for the scheme. In the instant case, it is noticed that a summon was issued to the appellant on 28.03.2012 much prior to the cut off date of 01 March 2013. Moreover, it is also informed to the court by the Learned Counsel that the subsequently a demand SCN was issued to the appellant in the same proceedings which were initiated by said summons. In view of above the appellants were rightly held ineligible for the scheme. 5. In this background, I do not find any error in the impugned order. The appeal is there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
