2017 (8) TMI 1112

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch, Chennai in rejecting their application filed for settlement of the demand raised in the show cause notice dated 02.12.2002 on the ground that the petitioner has not made full and true disclosure of their duty liability. 3. The controversy involved in this writ petition lies in a very narrow campus. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of paper and paper products falling under Chapter No. 48 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and they have been availing Modvat/Cenvat credit facility for discharging central excise duty on their final products. The officers of the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Regional Unit, Madurai, visited the petitioner's factory on 08.08.2001 and conducted ve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fore the Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli. In column No.12 of the application, the petitioner had mentioned that the additional amount of duty disclosed and accepted as payable being Rs. 24,13,266/-. The petitioner had further stated that they have remitted a sum of Rs. 28,00,923/- and therefore, seeking a refund of Rs. 3,87,657/-. Thus, as per the annexure, the admitted duty liability was Rs. 24,13,266/-. In other words, the petitioner s case was that they are entitled for refund of Rs. 3,87,657/- as to that extent, the demand was barred by limitation and they had paid an excess amount of excise duty by way of an adjustment with the Modvat/Cenvat credit. The petitioner, in their application, stated that the show cause notice ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....an application, before adjudication, to the Settlement Comission to have the case settled in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed and containing the full and true disclosure of his duty liability, which has not been disclosed before the Central Excise Officer having jurisdiction. The term case has been defined under Section 31(c) to mean any proceedings under the Act for levy, assessment and collection of excise duty pending before the adjudicating authority on the date on which the application under sub-section(1) of Section 32E is made. This is the prerequisite as a show-cause notice has to be issued by the concerned authority to enable the assessee to approach the Commission. The distinction, with regard to the powers of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....disclosure has to be interpreted considering the facts of each case and if such an interpretation is given, in my view, there has been a full and true disclosure by the petitioner, though the manner in which it has been presented may not be appropriate, the reason being that the show cause notice itself was restricted to the period from November, 1997 to June, 2001. It is only after the receipt of the show cause notice that the petitioner had the cause of action to appear before the Commission. The show cause notice admits that the petitioner had paid Central Excise duty to an extent of Rs. 28,00,923/- and that covers the period anterior to the period mentioned in the show cause notice and that is from June 1996 onwards. 8. It is true that....