2003 (6) TMI 442 - Commission - Central Excise

TTK Prestige Limited's Immunity Application Partially Upheld: Duty Demands, Penalties, Modvat Credit, Refunds Reevaluated

The application by M/s. TTK Prestige Limited seeking immunity from penal levy was found admissible by the Bench despite objections from the Revenue. The ... Settlement of case - Right to approach before Commission Issues Involved:1. Admissibility of the application by M/s. TTK Prestige Limited.2. Duty demands and penalties confirmed by the Commissioner.3. Remand of certain issues by the CEGAT and the Apex Court for de novo consideration.4. Eligibility of Modvat credit and refund claims.5. Objections raised by the Revenue regarding the stage of the application.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Admissibility of the Application:The application by M/s. TTK Prestige Limited was filed against proceedings from SCN C. No. V/76/15/61/1998-C.I dated 26-11-1998. The applicant holds Central Excise Registration No. 1/92 and is engaged in manufacturing aluminium pressure cookers and parts thereof. The Bench considered the rival contentions and noted that the object of the Commission is to deal with applications of assessees seeking immunity from penal levy, subject to their admitting true and complete duty liability. The Bench concluded that the applicant has a right to approach the Commission for immunities even at the stage of de novo consideration.2. Duty Demands and Penalties Confirmed by the Commissioner:The Commissioner confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 2,04,61,531/- along with penalties under the erstwhile Rule 173Q and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The applicant had already paid Rs. 1,99,26,015/- against this confirmed duty. The Hon'ble CEGAT upheld the duty demand except on four issues, which were remanded for de novo consideration. The penalties imposed under Rule 173Q were confirmed, but those under Section 11AC were remanded for reconsideration. The penalty on the Senior Vice President was set aside.3. Remand of Certain Issues by the CEGAT and the Apex Court for De Novo Consideration:The Hon'ble CEGAT remanded four issues involving duty of Rs. 23,40,073/- for de novo consideration. The Apex Court also remanded the case for fresh adjudication by the Commissioner, noting that the appellant had willingly tendered the excise duty amount without any dispute. The issues remanded include:- Rs. 2,52,531/- for additional discount to dealers.- Rs. 4,57,777/- for clearance of components under Rule 57F(3).- Rs. 6,45,290/- for stainless steel circles.- Rs. 9,84,475/- for irregular Modvat credit on inputs found short.4. Eligibility of Modvat Credit and Refund Claims:The applicant sought extension of Modvat credit of Rs. 15,22,657/- and a refund of Rs. 7,56,745/- allegedly paid in excess. The Bench queried the eligibility of the applicant for Modvat credit and the correctness of the duty amount involved. The applicant admitted a duty liability of Rs. 10,74,979/- for shortages and differential duty on stainless steel circles. The Bench found that the issues raised in the SCN and confirmed by the Commissioner had been remanded piecemeal by the CEGAT and the Apex Court, necessitating a complete de novo adjudication.5. Objections Raised by the Revenue Regarding the Stage of the Application:The Revenue objected to the admission, contending that the issue pending before the Commissioner is only in the nature of de novo proceedings, not a proceeding under SCN as required u/s 32E. They argued that the settlement application should be made before adjudication, not after. However, the Bench disagreed, noting that an application can be made even at the de novo stage, and the applicant satisfies all other conditions for filing an application before the Commission.Conclusion:The Bench found that the application merits admission, noting that the entire order of adjudication by the Commissioner on the SCN had been set aside for de novo adjudication by the CEGAT and the Apex Court. The application was allowed to proceed, with the applicant required to pay Rs. 10,74,979/- within 30 days and report compliance. The Bench also assumed exclusive jurisdiction over the case as per Section 32-I(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.