Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2019 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 707 - HC - Central Excise100% EOU - evasion of taxes - misuse of the scheme of EOU - discharge of duty liability during the de-bonding of the unit - petitioner contends that the orders are ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and left with no other alternative remedy they are forced to approach this Court in a Writ Petition - disagreements for the applicants in the proceedings before the settlement commission - Held that:- It is not open for the petitioner to opt for remedy under the settlement commission and contest its conclusions after choosing immunity from the adjudication and appeal processes set out in Law - The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanghvi Reconditioners Private Limited [2010 (2) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT] held that the petitioner having opted for settlement is not permitted to dissect Settlement Commission's Order to accept what is favourable and reject what is not. On perusal of the petition, and the Final Order of the Settlement Commission, it is seen that no new averments are placed in the Writ Petition. All the averments in the Writ Petition are part of the settlement application that are considered and covered in the Settlement Commission proceedings culminating in the impugned orders. Though this court does not want to get into the merits of the disputes, it is difficult to lose sight of the fact that some of the claims of the petitioner is patently at error - Rightly, the Commission had directed to pay the amount. Demand of ₹ 7,47,15,817/- being the duty on the manufactured goods escaping assessment at the time of de-bonding of the Petitioner's Unit - Held that:- The conditional permission of the Assistant Commissioner is at worst a concession/relaxation extended to the petitioner. It is unclear whether such a concession is permissible in law. However, it is certain that the final products in question manufactured under bond availing the benefits of the EOU Scheme had to be cleared for exports without illegitimately availing any export incentives/benefits like DEPB or Draw Back. But the finished goods under question were exported under claim of DEPB & Drawback which is not permissible under the EOU Scheme under the EXIM Policy - Rightly, the issue was concluded in favour of revenue by the Settlement Commission. But the petitioner herein is aggrieved by the conclusion and had pleaded arbitrariness in the Writ Petition. No extra ordinary situation warranting writ interference under Article 226 is brought out in the Writ Petition - petition dismissed.
|