TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1728
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petitioner company are the manufacturers of Billets, falling under Chapter heading 7207.90 of the Central Excise Tariff and are registered with the second respondent. It seems that, the third respondent issued show cause notice No. 55/2003, dated 5-11-2003 for confiscating the goods allegedly representing unaccounted production and imposed penalty under Section 25 of the Central Excise Rules, followed by a regular show cause notice in SCN No. 35/05, dated 29-6-2005 was issued proposing to levy Central Excise duty of Rs. 2,58,48,213/- allegedly representing duty on goods clandestinely removed during the period February, 2002 to May, 2003 besides penalty and interest. 3. The petitioner would further contend that Pursuant to the show....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....08 and Mr. V. Sundareswaran for SPC appeared for the respondents. 6. On perusal of the documents available and the arguments put forth by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is not in dispute that the petitioner company is a manufacturer of MS Billets and based on the intelligent and it was able to intelligence by the petitioner's company, such operation was conducted in the petitioner's factory at Pondicherry as well as in Chennai on 8-5-2003. During such operation, which resulted in seizure of incriminating documents such as parallel sets of invoices, actual production documents, un accounted raw-materials procurement details, and there was material evidence in the form of 680.987 MT of MS Billets, found un accounted and in e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he duty amount of Rs. 1,40,16,353/-, in which, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 84,92,315/- towards the admitted duty liability. The balance amount of Rs. 54,24,038/- should be paid by the petitioner and questioning before this Court challenging the balance admitted duty liability imposed on the petitioner. Apart from claiming to grant cum duty benefit while calculating the duty payable by them. The grounds raised down in this writ petition is narrow down only to the aspect whether the petitioner is liable for cum duty and where the imposition of penalty is to be interfered by this Court. 10. It could be also seen from the records primarily with regard to the claim on cum duty, the petitioner requested for to extend the benefit of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted and voluntarily made the payment towards pass liability to conduct of suppression of production, escaping central excise duty and un accounted raw materials which has also been clandestinely removed to various byers which had escaped the excise duty. The petitioner cannot expect to grant the cum duty benefit while calculating the duty payable by him. Actually, no duty has been included while the petitioner was removing the MS Billets to various customers who purchase from him. In such cases, there cannot be any question of detection of duty where no duty has been actually included in the wholesale price, the Settlement Commission has ordered for rejection for grant of cum duty benefit cannot be interfered with. While coming to the secon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to comply with any other condition subject to which the immunity was granted and there upon the provisions of this Act shall apply as if such immunity had not been granted. (3) An immunity granted to a person under Sub-Section (1) may, at any time, be withdrawn by the Settlement Commission, if it is satisfied that such person had, in the course of the settlement proceedings, concealed any particular material to the settlement or had given false evidence, and thereupon such person may be tried for the offence with respect to which the immunity was granted or for any other offence of which he appears to have been guilty in connection with the settlement and shall also become liable to the imposition of any penalty under this Act to w....