Page 232 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

766 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

2018 has been adjudicated by Principal Commissioner, CGST, Vadodra-I, under
O-I-O No. VAD-EXCUS-001-COM-24-18-19 dated 22-2-2019 and therefore, the
said applications are not maintainable.
4. Applicants’ submissions :
The applicant in their reply submitted on 19-6-2019 stated that they had
originally filed the application [on] 8-2-2019 and they were informed by the
Commission vide letter dated 20-2-2019 that there were certain defects which
needed to be rectified. They had rectified the errors and submitted vide post on
8-6-2019. That the application were neither rejected nor returned to them. They
had received a letter dated 13-6-2019 informing that the applications are not
maintainable as the SCN in respect of which they had filed application has al-
ready been adjudicated. The applicant has finally submitted that the O-I-O had
been issued on 22-2-2019 and that they had filed the settlement application prior
to that and therefore the application is maintainable and not hit by provisions of
Section 32(1) read with Section 31(c) of “the Act”.
5. Personal hearing :
5.1 Shri Manoj Mishra DGM (Comm) and Shri Chirag M. Nesti, Assis-
tant Manager appeared on behalf of Applicant. Shri D.K. Bhattacharya, S.I.O. and
Shri Amarjit Kumar, I.O. appeared on behalf of Revenue.
5.2 The written reply on admission notice filed by the Applicant was
taken on record. Shri Mishra reiterated the submissions made therein. He accept-
ed that the case has adjudicated vide O-in-O dated 20-2-2019, but argued that
since the applications, though defective were filed prior to passing of the O-in-O,
the same is maintainable.
5.3 The Revenue representative submitted that the application filed
earlier was not a proper application under Section 32E of the Central Excise Act,
as the interest amount on the accepted duty had not been paid. And now when
they have filed proper application, the case stands adjudicated and hence appli-
cation is not maintainable.
6. Findings :
6.1 The Bench has examined the matter carefully. The limited issue be-
fore the Bench is maintainability of the applications under Section 32E of the Act,
in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case. As has been stated
above, the applicant had initially filed an application which was defective - statu-
torily as well as procedurally. Accordingly they were returned to them in origi-
nal, vide letter dated 20-2-2019 with option to resubmit after rectifying the de-
fects.
6.2 The applicants resubmitted the applications after rectifying the de-
fects on 11-6-2019 and, in the meantime, the impugned SCN stood adjudicated
vide O-in-O, dated 22-2-2019. Hence, the present notice for non-maintainability
of the application. The applicants’ only substantive argument is that since the
applications (though defective) were filed prior to passing of the O-in-O, the
same are maintainable. Per contra, the Revenue has submitted that the earlier
applications were not proper applications under Section 32E of the Act and now
when they have filed proper applications the case stands adjudicated, hence the
application is not maintainable.
6.3 The Bench finds that the initial applications had several deficiencies
as has been enumerated in the letter dated 20-2-2019 (extracted at Para 2.3 above)
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  232