Page 24 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

xxii EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
Seizure (Contd.)
— of Indian currency under FERA, confiscation and penalty not sustainable
due to lack of evidence - See under PENALTY .................. 701
— under Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, inter alia, by DRI, scope of - See
under SEARCH AND SEIZURE .......................... 673
Served From India Scheme (SFIS), scope of clause 3.6.4.2 of Foreign Trade
Policy 2004-2009 - See under FTP 2004-2009.................... 625
Settlement application - Drawback availed in excess and wrongly,
settlement application maintainable - See under DEMAND ........... 771
Settlement Commission - Admission - Adjudication order issued when
application for settlement already filed with Bench - Order-in-Original
passed only after written request made by applicant company stating
that application filed before Settlement Commission at Chennai for
release of pending drawback - Thus, adjudication order became effective
subsequent to filing of application with Settlement Commission -
Applicant complied with requirement of Provisions under Section
127A(b) of Customs Act, 1962 since proceedings fall with definition of
‘case’ and same pending before Customs Officer on date on which
application made in accordance with provisions of law - Order-in-
Original cannot be given any cognizance as it is to be held as non est -
Section 32E of Central Excise Act, 1944 — In Re : Indo Shell Cast Pvt. Ltd. (Sett.
Comm.) ......................................... 771
— Application under Section 32E of Central Excise Act, 1944 admissibility of
- Settlement Application resubmitted after rectifying defects on 11-6-2019
however, in meantime, impugned show cause notice stood adjudicated
vide Order-in-Original dated 22-2-2019 - HELD : For purposes of
settlement, case must be pending before Adjudicating Authority as on
date of Application under Section 32E(1) ibid and no application under
Section 32E(1) ibid can be made unless conditions of Proviso clauses (a)
to (d) thereof, complied with - Further, while statute gives some
discretion to Bench in respect of condition (a), no discretion in respect of
other conditions - Thus, initial applications being violative of condition
(d) to be statutorily defective and could not have been treated as
application in strict legal sense, as language - Date of application ought to
be reckoned as date of receipt of valid application duly complying with
requirement of the law stipulated in Section 32E(1) ibid - Earlier invalid
defective application cannot be legally accepted as application - Date of
receipt of application to be 11-6-2019, however, on said date, impugned
show cause notice stood adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 20-2-
2019, hence, no more ‘case’ pending that could be settled - Applications
hence not maintainable and cannot be allowed to be proceeded with -
Section 32E of Central Excise Act, 1944 — In Re : Anupam Industries Ltd. (Sett.
Comm.) ......................................... 763
Settlement of cases - Settlement application - Admissibility - Deficiency in
filing appeal - Failure to pay interest on accepted duty amount - Under
normal situation, non-payment of interest would have attracted bar of
admissibility - First proviso to Section 127B of Customs Act, 1962
provides for payment of interest due under Section 28AA of Customs
Act, 1962 but interest in impugned show cause notice demanded under
Notification No. 97/2004-Cus. and Bond dated 22-5-2007 - Since interest
not demanded under Section 28AA ibid, bar of clause (c) of first proviso
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  24