Composite show cause notice can be settled as a whole, with penalty immunity allowed but interest still payable.

Settlement proceedings may deal with a composite show cause notice as a whole where the controversy across the relevant periods is the same, avoiding multiplicity of litigation. In this matter, the Commission treated the earlier admission order as no bar to final settlement of the entire notice. Where the applicant made full disclosure, admitted the duty liability and cooperated, immunity from penalty and prosecution was considered appropriate. However, failure to pay the dues at the proper time justified continued liability to simple interest at 10% per annum on the settled amount, so full immunity from interest was refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the settlement application could be entertained and the entire show cause notice could be settled notwithstanding the earlier admission order limiting the period; (ii) Whether the applicant was entitled to immunity from interest, penalty and prosecution after admitting and paying the duty liability.

Issue (i): Whether the settlement application could be entertained and the entire show cause notice could be settled notwithstanding the earlier admission order limiting the period.

Analysis: The proceedings arose from a composite show cause notice under the compounded levy scheme. The admitted controversy for the pre and post cut-off periods was found to be one and the same, and splitting the notice would lead to multiplicity of litigation. The earlier admission order was not treated as a bar to settlement of the whole notice, and the matter was taken up for final settlement of the entire proceedings covered by the notice dated 1-6-99.

Conclusion: The entire show cause notice was held fit for settlement.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicant was entitled to immunity from interest, penalty and prosecution after admitting and paying the duty liability.

Analysis: The applicant admitted the full duty liability, had already deposited part of it, and cooperated with the proceedings. On that basis, immunity from penalty and prosecution was considered appropriate. However, since the duty had not been paid at the appropriate time, total immunity from interest was declined. Interest was directed at simple interest of 10% per annum on the settled duty amount from 6-4-2000, while immunity was granted only beyond that quantified interest liability.

Conclusion: Immunity from penalty and prosecution was granted, but full immunity from interest was refused and interest at 10% per annum was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The settlement application was allowed in substantial part, the duty liability was finally quantified, and the applicant obtained immunity from penalty and prosecution with only a limited interest liability remaining.

Ratio Decidendi: In settlement proceedings, a composite show cause notice should ordinarily be dealt with as a whole, and where the applicant makes a full disclosure and cooperates, immunity may be granted, but interest can still be imposed when statutory dues were not paid at the appropriate time.

---