2005 (10) TMI 486

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s for settlement of the  proceedings initiated against them in Show Cause Notices No. IV/16/130/2003-UCD and No. IV/16/131/2003-UCD both dated 16-12-2003. Both Show Cause Notices have been adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry Division-I, imposing certain penalties on the applicants. . 2. In SCN No. IV/16/130/2003-UCD dated 16-12-2003, it has been alleged that the applicant failed to pay the duly for the period from April 2003 to September 2003 amounting to Rs. 5,52,05,757/- and an amount of Rs. 1,67,59,558/- was paid after one month from the due date. It has also been mentioned that out of the above mentioned amount Rs. 3,50,79,250/- had not been paid on the date of SCN which was issued on 16....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of the deemed non-payment of duty. He further cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gannon Dunkerley & Co. v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1993 (88) S.T.C. 204 (S.C.) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the meaning of "deeming provision". Since the goods have been deemed to have been cleared without payment of duty, he contended that it is open to the applicant to approach the Settlement Commission to admit the liability and seek settlement of the matter. 4. The Revenue's representative stated that the SCN was only for a limited purpose of imposing a penalty on the applicant. This is not a case of levy, assessment and collection of any excise duty because excise duty has already been declared....