9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 758X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to Rs. 1,76,04,762/-. The assesse filed an application under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962 before the Custom and Central Excise Settlement Commission praying for the settlement of the dispute. The Commission, by its order dated 28th May, 2002, directed the assessee to pay the Counter Veiling Duty, which liability was paid by the assessee. The Commission in its order settled the matter on the following terms:- "(i) The correct duty liability of the first application is Rs. 1,62,06,346/- as accepted by them in their application. This liability has now been fully paid. The correct liability of the second applicant is Rs. 1,25,62,941/- as accepted by them in their application. This liability has also been fully paid. The duty liabil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... well as to the DRI, who will certify the correctness thereof. The settlement arrived at under this order shall be void it it is subsequently found by the Commission that it has been obtained by fraud or mis-representation of facts. Attention of all concerned is drawn to sub-section 2 and sub-section 3 of Section 127Hso far as the immunities granted under this order are concerned." From a perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that the Commission directed that in respect of the Counter Veiling duty paid by the assessee, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) would issue a certificate of proof of payment made by the assessee, so as to enable the assessee to claim the benefit of MODVAT credit in accordance with law. The Commission also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which was allowed and the order in original was set aside. The department, being aggrieved, has filed the present appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether the credit of differential additional customs duty wrongly availed by the respondent on the strength of certificate issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and supplementary invoice issued by the supplier is admissible? 2. Whether the penalties should not be imposed on the respondent as well as on Mr. Krishan Gupta, Ex-Managing Director and Mr. Akhilesh Kulshreshth (Authorised Signatory) for contravening the provisions of Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the instant case. With regard to imposition of penalty for contravening the provision of Rule 57E(3), (4) and (5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 7(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, the Settlement Commission granted full immunity to the assessee for levy of penalty or fine under the Act in respect of matters covered in the dispute. The contravention done the Ex-Managing Director and the Authorised Signatory was one of the dispute which was settled by the Settlement Commission and, consequently, it was no longer open to the department to issue a show cause notice for levying such penalty. In the light of the aforesaid, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The question of law is answered against the department and in favour o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
