Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2015 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 601 - HC - Central ExciseValidity of order of settlement commission - Imposition of penalty - Suppression of facts - whether the Central Excise Settlement Commission erred in imposing penalty without quantifying the penalty and fine in full - Held that:- Appellants admittedly short paid duty by suppressing facts. Applications were filed disclosing fully and truly the duty liability. Section 32K, inter alia, speaks of immunity wholly or in part from the imposition of any penalty and fine under ‘this Act’. Section 32K does not contain separate provision for calculation of total penalty and fine. Therefore, for calculation of penalty and fine, section 11AC of ‘this Act’, that is, Central Excise Act, 1944, is applicable. Keeping the statutory provisions in mind, under section 11AC, in a regular adjudication, the appellants would have been subjected to payment of penalty equal to duty found to have been evaded. In the instant case the appellants disclosed that the whole amount of duty evaded was ₹ 1,09,92,429/-. Hence, the appellants were liable to pay an equal amount of penalty, that is ₹ 1,09,92,429/-. As section 32 K empowers the Settlement Commission to reduce penalty and fine and to grant immunity from prosecution, a power a central excise officer does not possess under regular adjudication, the Commission had passed the order imposing a total penalty of ₹ 52 lakhs, being a ‘part’ of the total penalty, and waving the balance and granting immunity from prosecution with respect to the case covered by the settlement. Thus, we find there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Commission. - since settlement under the Act is in the nature of a package, as rightly contended by Mr. Bhardwaj, the appellants having accepted immunity from prosecution, cannot challenge the quantum of penalty imposed as harsh. - Decided against assessee.
|