Voluntary disclosure of erroneous duty drawback claims justified settlement and defeated penalty where no fraud or suppression was shown.

Erroneous duty drawback claims were treated as settled where the applicant disclosed the excess claim, paid the drawback and interest voluntarily, and the record showed the mistake arose from an inadvertent omission rather than fraud or deliberate suppression. The Settlement Commission appropriated the amounts already paid and held that no further liability survived. On the same facts, fine and penalty were declined against both the applicant and its director because the documentary declarations were otherwise correct, no clandestine conduct was established, and no separate culpable role was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the ineligible duty drawback and interest already paid by the applicant should be settled and appropriated; (ii) Whether fine or penalty was leviable on the applicant and its director for the erroneous drawback claims.

Issue (i): Whether the ineligible duty drawback and interest already paid by the applicant should be settled and appropriated.

Analysis: The applicant had exported goods through a large number of shipping bills, but the erroneous higher drawback claim was confined to a small number of bills. The ARE-1 and ARE-2 records disclosed the use of inputs procured without duty payment as well as inputs on which CENVAT credit had been availed. The excess drawback and interest were paid voluntarily, partly after the departmental objection and partly on the applicant's own verification. On these facts, the disclosure was treated as complete and bona fide, and the admitted liability was fit to be settled under the settlement mechanism.

Conclusion: The duty drawback liability of Rs. 20,01,721 and the interest liability of Rs. 3,66,965 were settled and the amounts already paid were appropriated, with no further liability surviving.

Issue (ii): Whether fine or penalty was leviable on the applicant and its director for the erroneous drawback claims.

Analysis: The Bench accepted that the discrepancy in the shipping bills was an inadvertent omission rather than fraud, especially since the relevant declarations in the accompanying export documents were correct and the applicant had voluntarily rectified the matter. The facts relied upon by the Revenue were distinguished on the ground that the present case did not involve clandestine conduct comparable to deliberate misuse or substitution of goods. In these circumstances, the statutory grounds for imposing penalty were not considered established, and the director was also spared for the same reasons because the notice was joint and several and no separate culpable role was made out warranting punishment.

Conclusion: No fine or penalty was imposed on the applicant or on its director.

Final Conclusion: The settlement was granted on the admitted drawback liability, the paid amounts were adjusted against the demand, and complete immunity from fine and penalty was extended in the facts of the case.

Ratio Decidendi: Where erroneous drawback claims are fully disclosed, promptly paid, and shown to arise from an inadvertent omission rather than deliberate suppression or fraud, settlement of the liability may be granted and penalty may be refused.

---