2015 (5) TMI 660

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2014, whereunder, the Settlement Commission purports to decline consideration of the application, with reference to bar under section 32-O(1)(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. A show cause notice dated 19th December, 2012 was issued to the Petitioner, alleging taking of incorrect and irregular cenvat credit and seeking explanation as to why extended period of limitation under section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 should not be invoked for willfully suppressing facts, why cenvat credit of Rs. 63,22,329/- availed of in contravention of rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 should not be disallowed and recovered, why interest should not be recovered under section 11AB of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n gross violation of principles of natural justice. Present application for settlement had been lodged after the order dated 31st October, 2013 passed by the Settlement Commission in respect of show cause notice dated 28th December, 2012 alleging mis-statement with regard to payment of duty. He further submits that on realisation of the mistake upon issuance of show cause notice, the Petitioners had sought settlement in the same and under the order dated 31st October, 2013, differential central excise duty to the tune of Rs. 9,11,461/- was settled along with interest of Rs. 14,384/- and imposition of penalty on Petitioner No. 1 of Rs. 30,000/- and 5,000/- each in respect of Mr. Tushar Ganage and two others. He further submits that it was un....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... has weighed with the Settlement Commission is fragile by very nature and has no basis. He submits that section 32-O has no application in the present case. It cannot be said that there is any case against the Petitioners of concealment of particulars of duty liability and in none of the show cause notices, this was a matter in issue and as such the impugned order deserves to be interfered with and set aside. 8. Mr. Kantharia appearing for the Respondents submits that looking into the facts and circumstances, no fault can be found with the ultimate decision taken by the settlement commission. He submits that the statement occurring in respect of the payment of duty in the return submitted by the Petitioners/Assessees is indeed a mis-stat....