Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2018 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 1825 - HC - Central ExciseScope of review - application for Settlement Commission - Section 32-F(5) of CEA, 1944 - Clandestine removal - HELD THAT:- Scope for interference against the orders passed by the second respondent is very limited particularly under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. An order of a Settlement Commission can be interfered only if it is passed contrary to the provisions of the Act. Section 32-F deals with Procedure on Receipt of an Application under Section 32E by a Settlement Commission. Under Sub-clause (5) of the Settlement Commission is expected to pass such orders as it thinks fit on the matters covered by the application and any other matter relating to the case not covered by the application. The report of the Principal Commissioner of Central Excise or Commissioner of Central Excise and Commissioner (Investigation) under subsection (3) or sub-section (4) is one of the document to be relied by the 2nd respondent while passing order under Section 32 F(S) of the CEA, 1944 - Though Section 32F if CEA, 1944 is not pari-material with Section 245 D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, nevertheless makes it clear that the order has to be passed after examination of the records and the report of the Principal Commissioner of Central Excise or Commissioner of Central Excise received under sub-section (3), and the report, if any, of the Commissioner (Investigation) of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4). As there is no discussion in the impugned order regarding the report of the Commissioner (Investigation), it is liable to be set aside as having passed contrary to Section 32-F(5) of the CEA, 1944 - the case is remanded back to the 2nd Respondent for passing a fresh order on merits - petition allowed by way of remand.
|