2005 (98) ECC 43 (Settl. Commn.)

SETTLEMENT COMMISSION : CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE

Additional Bench : Mumbai

Shri A.K. Mehta, Vice Chariman and Shri V.K. Sharma, Member

CEAT Limited

Versus

Revenue

Settlement Applicaion No. SC/MZ/CE/24/2003

Final Order No. 35/CEX/2004, dt. 4.2.2004, Certified on 16.7.2004

Settlement

Application before the Settlement Commission in terms of Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944, inter alia, disclosing and accepting the total duty liability of Rs. 17,96,685. The representative of the applicant submitted that under a mistake of law, they have filed their application before the Commission. The application does not fulfil the conditions of Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Since there is no case pending before a CE Officer or Central Govt. on the date on which application was made under S. 32E(1), Commission therefore, does not allow the application to be proceeded under S. 32F(1).

PRESENT :

Shri G. Sharma, Chief Manager (INDT), Shri Suman Chakroborty, Asstt. Manager for the applicant.

Shri Y.K. Torgalmath, Supdt. and Shri Sanjay Hasija, Inspector, for the Revenue

This order disposes of the application filed by, M/s. CEAT Ltd. Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) on 4.2.2004.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

The applicant is engaged in the manufacture of tyres & flaps falling under Chapter 40 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

2. A Show Cause Notice dated 21.11.2002 was issued by the Supdt. of Central Excise, Range-I, Bhandup Division, Mumbai-III demanding, inter alia, duty amount of Rs. 17,96,685 besides invoking other penal provisions because of incorrect/excess availment of MODVAT credit.

3. The aforesaid Show Cause cum Demand notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III, vide his Order-in-Original No. 12/KKS/2003-2004/8489 dtd. 6.11.2003 which was received by the applicant on 6.11.2003.

4. The Applicant vide letter dated 4.2.2004 filed an application before the Settlement Commission in terms of Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944, inter alia, disclosing and accepting the total duty liability of Rs. 17,96,685.

5. The case was kept for admission hearing on 19th May 2004. However, on the request of the Advocate of the applicant, it was adjourned to 29th June 2004.

6. The applicant was represented by Shri G. Sharma, Chief Manager (INDT) at the time of admission hearing held on 29.6.2004 when Shri Suman Chakroborty, Asstt. Manager was also present.

7. The representative of the applicant submitted that under a mistake of law, they have filed their application before the Commission. He further submitted that at the time when they filed their application, there was no case pending before any Central Excise authority as envisaged under Section 32E read with Section 31(C) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In this view of the matter, the representative submitted that they are not fulfilling the conditions of Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

8. The Revenue was represented by Shri Y.K. Torgalmath, Superintendent, Central Excises, Mumbai III when Shri Sanjay Hasija, Inspector, from the Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai III Commissionerate was also present.

9. The Revenue submitted that the application is not admissible for the reasons stated above.

10. The Commission has gone through the records of the case and the submissions made by the applicant and the Revenue. The Bench observes that the applicant is right in its above arguments with which Revenue also concur. The Commission observes that there is no case pending before a Central Excise Officer or Central Government on the date on which the application was made under sub-Section (1) of Section 32 E. The Commission therefore, does not allow the application to be proceeded with under the provisions of Sub-Section (1) of Section 32F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

11. All concerned may be informed suitably.

………………………..