Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2019 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 834 - HC - Central ExciseMaintainability of Settlement Application - It is the case of the petitioner that the Settlement Commission directed the revenue to submit a report on the Cenvat credit by 30th October, 2017 and to forward the same to the petitioner company as well - Whether the Settlement Commission was justified in holding that there was non-cooperation on the part of the petitioner? HELD THAT:- The Settlement Commission has not recorded any finding that the petitioner has not made a true and full disclosure of the facts pertaining to it. More importantly, the Settlement Commission has relegated the matter to the adjudicating authority not on account of failure to make a full and true disclosure on the part of the petitioner but because it was of the view that the case will necessarily involve proper appreciation of facts and circumstances based on documents and records available with the petitioner and correct interpretation of law and procedure. In this view of the matter, when having regard to the totality of the facts of the case, the conduct of the petitioner cannot be said to amount to non-cooperation and the fact that the Settlement Commission has thought it fit to send the matter to the adjudicating authority as it was of the view that it does not have the jurisdiction to decide the dispute with regard to either applicability of service tax and/or entering into the questions raised before it, in the opinion of this court the Settlement Commission was not justified in sending the matter to the adjudicating authority under section 32-L of the Act which has serious consequences in view of the provisions of section 32-O(1)(iii) which postulate that where the case of such person is sent back to the Central Excise Officer having jurisdiction by the Settlement Commission under section 32L, then he shall not be entitled to apply for settlement under section 32E in relation to any other matter. In the opinion of this court, if the Settlement Commission was of the opinion that considering the nature of the dispute raised before it, the matter was required to be remitted to the adjudicating authority, it should have done so in the exercise of powers under section 32F(5) of the Act which empowers it to pass such orders on the application as it thinks fit. The impugned order passed by the Settlement Commission, to the extent it holds that the conduct of the petitioner in the proceedings before it amounts to non-cooperation and, therefore, is liable to be rejected and sent back to the adjudicating authority on this ground alone is hereby quashed and set aside - Petition allowed in part.
|