Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2017 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 1089 - HC - Central ExciseReceipt of application by Settlement Commission - subsection (5) of section 32F of the Act - the Settlement Commission did not grant hearing as envisaged under section 32F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - it is also alleged that the Settlement Commission committed serious errors in law in not accepting the petitioners' contentions regarding the invoices relied upon - Held that: - Subsection (5) of section 32F undoubtedly provides for a personal hearing being granted to the applicant by the Settlement Commission. It was in this context that the Settlement Commission heard the representatives of both sides on 04.10.2016. Thereafter the Settlement Commission merely permitted both sides to exchange documents. The order dated 04.10.2016 does not envisage any further hearing, nor admittedly the petitioners in any of the further correspondences pleaded before the Settlement Commission that further personal hearing be granted. Subsection (6) of section 32F lays down the time limit for completion of the proceedings before the Settlement Commission and provides that failing completion of the proceedings within such time, the settlement proceedings shall abate and the adjudicating authority before whom the proceedings at the time of making application was pending, shall dispose of the case in accordance with the provisions of the Act as if no application for settlement was made. Subsection (6) of section 32F thus instils sense of urgency in disposal of settlement proceedings. When pending adjudication of proceedings under the Act, the declarant is given an opportunity to approach the Settlement Commission, upon which, such proceedings would be kept under abeyance, the anxiety of the legislature that the proceedings be completed expeditiously can well be appreciated. In the order dated 04.10.2016, the Settlement Commission gave an impression that there shall be further hearing after both sides produce additional documents as envisaged. As noted, in none of the further responses that the petitioners filed before the Settlement Commission or the department, any request was made that a fresh personal hearing be granted - the petitioners now cannot raise a grievance that the Settlement Commission did not grant a further personal hearing, though required. The issue that the Settlement Commission committed serious errors in law in not accepting the petitioners' contentions regarding the invoices relied upon requires closer scrutiny - partly decided against petitioner and part matter on remand.
|