Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2015 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 248 - HC - Central ExciseValidity of decision of settlement commission - Scope of section 32-E and 32-F(2) - Settlement commission closed the proceedings - Settlement Commission has found that the applicant-petitioner has not made full and true disclosure of the duty liability and the computation and calculation of the same is not in order - Under Valuation of goods - actual amortization cost of moulds was not included into the assessable value for payment of excise duty. Held that:- Settlement Commission ought to have understood that section 32-E of the Central Excise Act, 1944, deals with application for settlement of cases and by sub-section (1) what the law postulates is a proper application to the Commission to have a case settled. The application must be in such form and must be made in such manner as is prescribed by the Rules. It should contain full and true disclosure of the duty liability which has not been disclosed before the Central Excise Officer having jurisdiction; the manner in which the liability has been derived, the additional amount of excise duty accepted to be payable and such other particulars as may be prescribed and set out in sub-section (1) of section 32-E Matter proceeded upto sub-section (4) of section 32-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. There are certificates which have been obtained and placed on record by both the appellant-petitioner and the Revenue. The Revenue faults the contents of that certificate and by raising several pleas. However, the Bench viz. the Settlement Commission found that the petitioner is contesting the methodology of the Department in arriving at the demand in the show-cause notice. A reference is made to the certificate of the Chartered Engineer and the recalculation of the duty payable on that basis by the petitioner. Thereafter, Revenue's objection to the certificate is noted and particularly that there is no documentary evidence to support the claim. The Bench felt that a legal settlement is not possible without going into a lot of details of the disputes as far as the methodology is concerned. If the Revenue is not accepting the certificate or the lower amount, the Bench is then not handicapped and just cannot fold its hands in cases like the present one. It is not a dismissal based on a conclusion that the disclosure is not full and true. If it was indeed not so, there was no occasion for issuing further directions and to permit parties to examine certificates and equally the Revenue to file the report. All this means that unmindful of the statutory obligation and duty, the Commission wanted to abruptly end the proceedings. - If such an approach is adopted, the very purpose of setting up a Commission and enabling settlement of disputes expeditiously and promptly is defeated. That is to encourage settlement of claims which are long overdue and by pendency of which larger public interest cannot be sub-served. Delay in recovery of taxes harms the National economy and one need not over-emphasize this aspect. - matter restored before the Settlement Commission - Decided in favour of assessee.
|