Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2016 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 1225 - HC - Central ExciseApplication for Settlement Application - Bar on subsequent application for settlement in certain cases - Whether with the introduction of the “Explanation” to Section 32-O(1)(i) there was a change in law with regard to the one time-bar under the said section? - Held that:- Under Section 32E(1) an application for settlement can be filed before the Commission where there is non-disclosure of duty liability before the Central Excise Officer. Under Section 32-O(1)(i) a person is barred from filing a subsequent application for settlement where he has suffered an order passed under Section 32F(5) and therein the “Explanation” has been introduced that the concealment of particulars of duty liability “relates to any such concealment made from the Central Excise Officer”. Thus, “Explanation” in 32-O(1)(i) is consistent with the statutory intent in Section 32E(1). As seen “Explanation” introduced is a reiteration of the statutory provisions in Section 32E(1). Hence, the “Explanation” is clarificatory in nature - Therefore, as the bar under Section 32-O(1)(i) was always in vogue, the submission in this regard on behalf of the respondent is unacceptable. Whether with the introduction of sub-section (2) to Section 32-O with effect from 1st June, 2007, subsequently omitted on 8th May, 2010, the concept of one time approach under Section 32-O was removed? - Held that:- The Commission had disposed of the earlier application of settlement by order dated 26th November, 2010 by directing the respondents to pay duty of Central Excise. Therefore, as and when the Commission took up the application for settlement for hearing, no “earlier application” on the “identical” issue was “pending” before it. Hence, the Section 32-O(2) since deleted, does not come to the aid of the respondents herein, that is the writ petitioners. Whether in the earlier proceedings before the Settlement Commission penalty was imposed on the respondents, that is the writ petitioners, for concealment of particulars of their duty liability? - Held that:- Under Section 32-O(1)(i) the bar to file subsequent application was always in vogue, in view of the clear finding in detail by the Commission that in the previous proceedings penalty was imposed for concealment of particulars of duty liability, the argument of the respondent on this issue cannot be accepted. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|