Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 1006 - AT - Central ExciseChance to approach the Settlement Commission - grievance of the appellant is that the impugned order was passed ex parte and also that the adjudicating authority failed to consider his request to allow time to file an application before the Settlement Commission - Held that:- The appellant had promptly responded to all notices of personal hearing by filing a request for adjournment and also has intimated his intention to move the Settlement Commission for settlement of his case. The authority below has remained in a peaceful slumber for more than two and half years to issue the show cause notice pertaining to these appeals, after search and resumption of documents and then also for more than a year, to return the laptop. On such factual backdrop the time allowed to the appellant for submitting a reply and defending the case appears to be very less. The adjudicating authority has completed the proceedings hastily and passed the order in a hurried manner, for reasons which we do not know. The impugned order suffers the infirmity of an order being passed violating the principles of natural justice. We, therefore, have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order has to be set aside and the matter has to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication after giving the appellant time to file reply and opportunity of personal hearing. The objectives of setting up of the Settlement Commission are to provide an alternative channel for dispute resolution for the assessee and to expedite payment of Customs, Central Excise, and Service Tax, involved in disputes by avoiding costly and time-consuming litigation process. It also provides an opportunity to taxpayers to come clean who may have evaded payments of duty. The scheme encourages quick settlement of disputes and saves the worries of prosecution in certain situations. As such the scheme is an alternative dispute resolution scheme which augments tax collection preventing the revenue being held up in litigation process. The adjudicating authority has failed to appreciate the law contained in Chapter V of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in the correct perspective. However, the plea of the ld. counsel for appellant to pass an order referring the present case to Settlement Commission cannot be granted The national litigation policy is to reduce litigations by promoting alternate dispute resolution mechanism by settlement of cases. It is unfortunate that the appellant was denied such an opportunity to settle the case by not allowing reasonable time even after repeated requests. For the above reasons, we are not able to accept the contention of the appellant that this Tribunal ought to allow the appellant a chance to approach the Settlement Commission after setting aside the impugned order.
|