Page 233 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

2020 ] IN RE : ANUPAM INDUSTRIES LTD. 767

under which the applications in original were returned. The contention of the
applicants in the written reply that the applications were not returned to them is
not factually correct, otherwise how did they resubmitt them by removing the
defects? Out of the several defects, some were procedural like, not in requisite
copies as per Rules, no copy of SCN, etc., but one defect was a statutory defect
i.e. non-deposit of interest on the accepted duty which is a mandatory require-
ment under Section 32E(1) of the Act.
6.4 The legal texts relevant to the context are extracted as under :-
(i) ‘case’ as defined under section 31 of the Act -
“(c) “case” means any proceeding under this Act or any other Act
for the levy, assessment and collection of excise duty, pending be-
fore an adjudicating authority on the date on which an application
under sub-section (1) of Section 32E is made :
Provided that when any proceeding is referred back by any court,
Appellate Tribunal or any other authority, to the adjudicating au-
thority for a fresh adjudication or decision, as the case may be, then
such proceeding shall not be deemed to be a proceeding pending
within the meaning of this clause;”
(ii) Section 32E of Central Excise Act, 1944 which read as under :-
“Section 32E. Application for settlement of cases. (1) An as-
sessee, may, in respect of a case relating to him, make an applica-
tion, before adjudication, to the Settlement Commission to have the
case settled, in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed
and containing a full and true disclosure of his duty liability which
has not been disclosed before the Central Excise Officer having ju-
risdiction, the manner in which such liability has been derived the
additional amount of excise duty accepted to be payable by him
and such other particulars as may be prescribed including the par-
ticulars of such excisable goods in respect of which he admits short
levy on account of misclassification, undervaluation, inapplicability
of exemption notification or CENVAT credit and any such applica-
tion shall be disposed of in the manner hereinafter :
Provided that no such application shall be made unless, -
(a) the applicant has filed returns showing production, clearance
and central excise duty paid in the prescribed manner;
(b) a show cause notice for recovery of duty issued by the Central
Excise Officer has been received by the applicant;
(c) the additional amount of duty accepted by the applicant in his
application exceeds three lakh rupees; and
(d) the applicant has paid the additional amount of excise duty
accepted by him along with interest due :
Provided further that the Settlement Commission, if it is satisfied
that the circumstances exist for not filing the returns referred to in
clause (a) of the first proviso to sub-section (1), may after recording
the reasons therefor, allow the applicant to make such application.
XXXXXXXXX.”
(stress provided)
6.5 A plain perusal of above reveals that for the purposes of settlement,
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  233