Page 230 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

764 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) read with Section 11AC of the Act.
The SCN also proposes to impose penalty on all the abovementioned three (3)
Co-Applicants under Rule 15(1) of the CCR and Rule 26(2)(ii) of Central Excise
Rules, 2002.
The applications of the Applicant and the three (3) Co-Applicants were
received in the Registry on 11-6-2019 and has been given Registration No.
“SA[E]68, 69, 70 & 71/2019”.
Brief Facts
2.1 The Bench will, for the limited purpose of deciding the admissibil-
ity, consider the facts, related to the application, as are necessary to decide the
same, without going into the facts of the SCN.
2.2 The Applicant and all the three (3) Co-Applicants had initially filed
two applications (through post) for settlement of disputes arising of two SCN’s
which were received in the Secretariat on 15-2-2019. The said two Applications
pertained to SCN’s as under -
(a) SCN No. DGSTI/SZU/36-08/AIL-05/2018-19, dated 5-7-2018 for
Rs. 57,12,834/-. (which pertains to this order).
(b) SCN No. DGSTI/SZU/36-09/AIL-05/2018-19, dated 5-7-2018 for
Rs. 2,12,52,849/-.
2.3 On scrutiny of the Applications both were found to be defective
and not complying with the Section 32E(1) of the Act. Hence the said two defec-
tive applications, in original, were returned to the Applicants vide Letter No.
F.No. IV/16-14/General Applications/2019, dated 20-2-2019. The relevant text of
the letter is reproduced below -
“2. On scrutiny of the applications, it is found that the applications are de-
fective inasmuch as”
(a) Application has been filed only in one set and not in quintuplicate as
required under provision of Rule 3(3) of Central Excise (Settlement of
Cases) Rules, 2007 [CE(SC) Rules].
(b) Further copy of the SCN for which you have filed the Application is
not enclosed. This is one of the most relevant documents to be filed
along with the application, as required under the provision of Rule
3(2) of CE(SC) Rules.
(c) In the Application at Sl. No. 10(a) “Amount of duty accepted as paya-
ble for settlement (in Rs.) you have mentioned - “N.A” which is incor-
rect and if so then violates the eligibility criteria specified under the
provision of clause (c) of first Proviso to Section 32E(1) of Central Ex-
cise Act, 1944 (CEA 1944).
(d) Against Sl. No. 10(b) “against accepted interest on the said duty” you
have mentioned Rs. 83,41,685/- and Rs. 61,27,657/- in the respective
applications. However, against Sl. No. 11 regarding details of pay-
ments of duty and interest (in both the applications) you have not
mentioned any details of payments of interest.
In the Annexure-III (of both the applications) you have at Para 5 men-
tioned that you are in the process of arranging for the payment of the
interest which has not been paid so far.

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  230