Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + Commission Central Excise - 2018 (7) TMI Commission This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 2096 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, MUMBAIMaintainability of Settlement Commission application - outstanding service tax liability - period from 2009-2010 (from October, 2009 to March, 2010) - demand of tax with interest and penalty - imposition of late fine. HELD THAT:- This is a case where a notice under Section 32F(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was issued to the applicant to pay the entire interest amount applicable on the admitted Service Tax liability of ₹ 2,03,97,675/-. As the reply to the notice dated 28-3-2018 was not received from the applicant nor any order issued by the Bench within the period of fourteen (14) days from the date of the notice dated 28-3-2018 i.e. on or before 10-4-2018 the application was deemed to have been allowed to be proceeded with in terms of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 32F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (CEA, 1944). During the oral proceedings the applicant pleaded for four (4) months’ time to make the payment of balance interest liability. The prayer of the applicant is not tenable in law as Chapter V of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not provide for deferment of interest payment in the scheme of Settlement of cases. In fact as per Section 32E, - no application for settlement shall be made unless amongst other things - the applicant has paid the additional amount of duty accepted by him along with interest due thereon [sub-section (d) of First proviso to Section 32E]. The applications for settlement were received in the Secretariat on 26-3-2018 and till date they have failed to pay the balance interest of ₹ 1,20,51,037/- due on the accepted duty in terms of condition (d) to first proviso of Section 32E of the CEA, 1944. In view of non-compliance of Section 32E of the CEA, 1944, as made applicable to Service Tax vide Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1944, the impugned applications of the applicant/co-applicant are therefore held as not maintainable in law, as of now - The Bench rejects these applications as non-maintainable.
|