TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 645X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectively the period from the 1-4-98 to 30-4-98 and from 1-11-98 to 31-3-99. (The SCNs are found to be since adjudicated by the appropriate authority and pending before the appellate authority.) 2.The applicant is engaged in the manufacture of MS Ingots falling under sub-heading 7206.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The applicant was working under compounded levy scheme as per Rule 96ZO(3) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter called the Rules) read with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, (the Act). The annual capacity of production (ACP) had been fixed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Meerut and accordingly they were required to pay the duty on that basis. 3.The application was admitted vide Admissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that the admission order dated 4-8-2004, read with corrigendum dated 4-10-04, admitted the proceedings relating only to the period 15-1-99 to 31-3-99 covered by the SCN No. V(3)Dem/62/99/2423, dated 1-6-99 though the said SCN itself covered a larger period i.e. 1-11-98 to 31-3-99. The Bench queried whether in view of the decision of the Principal Bench of the Commission in the case of M/s. Oriflame India Pvt. Ltd. [2000 (122) E.L.T. 601 - Settlement Commission] the SCN as a whole has to be considered for settlement, or only a part of it can be proceeded with. The counsel for the applicant admitted that as per the decision of Hon ble Mumbai High Court in the case of UOI v. Sai Impex [Order dated 7-7-2003 of Mumbai High Court in WP No. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... even now i.e. settlement of the entire proceedings covered under the SCN dated 1-6-99, covering the entire period 1-11-98 to 31-3-99. However, he contended that as the duty liability had not been discharged at the appropriate time, immunity from payment of interest and penalty should not be granted. He also drew the attention of the Bench to the written comments by the Commissioner vide their letter C. No. 1(10) Legal/Sett/Raman/MZN-I/141/ 2004, dated 8-9-2004. 5.The Bench has considered the application along with the records and the contents of the aforesaid Admission Order dated 4-8-2004 (read with Corrigendum to the Admission Order dated 4-10-2004), as also the submissions made by the rival parties, both oral and written from time to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following terms and conditions : (i) Central Excise duty due in the proceedings relating to 01-11-98 to 31-3-99 is settled at Rs. 25,00,000/-. Since the applicant has deposited so far only Rs. 15 Lakhs, he shall pay Rs. 10,00,000/- balance within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. (ii) As the appropriate duty amount for relevant period covered by the Admission Order was not paid till the issue of the Admission Order, though the liability under ACP got resolved with the judgment dated of 5-4-2000 of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Venus Castings [2000 (117) E.L.T. 273 (S.C.)] the Bench is not inclined to grant total immunity from interest. The applicant shall pay simple interest @ 10% p.a. on the above settled a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
