TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 465X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sumeet Bhattacharya, Vice Chairman Managing Director of M/s. Procter Gamble India Ltd., R.A. Shah, Director of M/s. Procter Gamble India Ltd. , P.J. Menezes, Director of M/s. Modern Hygiene Products Ltd. and Anuj Lall, Manager of M/s. Procter Gamble India Ltd. were represented by Shri M.P. Baxi, Advocate, Ms. R. Narvekar and Shri S. Rao, Officer (Indirect Taxation). 2. The ld. Advocate submitted that the applicants for the second time have filed the application before the Hon. Settlement Commission. On the last occasion, the ld. Advocate submitted that they were agreed to a part period i.e. six months of the show cause notice and also had not come up with full and true disclosure of their duty liability whereas this time, the ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though the show cause notice demands a duty of Rs. 11,52,72,957/-, this amount is likely to be reduced to Rs 9.86 crores (approx.) and the Applicant is agreeable to admit around Rs. 8.24 crores. As such, so far as admissibility of the case is concerned, the Revenue has no objection in admitting the same. 6. The Commission on a specific query to the Revenue as to how it has no objection in admitting the case, the Revenue replied that on the earlier occasion, the Applicant was admitting to a part period of the show cause notice whereas the Applicant now accepts the entire period as mentioned in the show cause notice. 7. The Commission has gone through the records of the case and the submission of the ld. Advocate of the Applicant as well ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for not accepting the entire duty demanded in the show cause notice, which is Rs. 11,52,72,957/-, is given by the Applicant in his application which will be considered at the appropriate time. The issue agitating the Commission was whether in such an event as in this case, once an application is rejected as not admissible can be entertained again by the Commission. In this connection, the Commission went through the provisions of Section 32(O) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which reads as under :- Bar on subsequent application for settlement in certain cases - where - (i) an order of settlement passed under sub-section (7) of Section 32F provides for the imposition of a penalty on the person who made the application under Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... formation produced by the assessee before the Settlement Commission or the results of the inquiry held or evidence recorded by the Settlement Commission in the course of the proceedings before it as if such materials, information, inquiry and evidence had been produced before such Central Excise Officer or held or recorded by him in the course of the proceedings before him. (3) For the purposes of the time limit under Section 11A and for the purposes of interest under Section 11BB, in a case referred to in sub-section (1) the period commencing on and from the date of the application to the Settlement Commission under Section 32E and ending with the date of receipt by the Central Excise Officer of the order of the Settlement Commission sen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
