Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2021 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 868 - HC - Central ExciseSeeking to Issuance of directions to re-dispose the application for settlement filed by the petitioner - transparency in the matter of conducting an investigation by the Department Officials or not - grievance of the petitioner is that the two seized hard disks are not produced before the Settlement Commission for investigation - present writ petition is the second writ petition filed by the petitioner-Company - Section 32-E of the Central Excise Act - HELD THAT:- For entertaining an application under Section 32-E of the Act, the application must contain full and true disclosure of duty liability, which had not been disclosed before the Central Excise officer having jurisdiction. Secondly, sub-section (1) of Section 32-L of the Act contemplates that any person who made an application for settlement under Section 32-E has not cooperated with the Settlement Commission in the proceedings before it - Unless the first condition is satisfied, the application cannot be admitted. Once the application is admitted, till the end of the proceedings, the person who submits an application has to cooperate with the Settlement Commission for the purpose of settling the issues. The twin conditions admitted in the two conditions are of paramount importance. In view of the fact that once the issues are settled before the Settlement Commission, then there is no scope for reopening by the authorities and under those circumstances, these conditions are to be considered as vital in order to protect both the interest of the Department as well as the interest of the persons, who submits an application - it is sufficient if the findings of the Settlement Commission are considered. In the present case, the Revenue could establish their position based on Investigation Report along with the primary evidences recovered from the premises of the petitioner. However, the petitioner had neither agreed to the Revenue's stand nor produced any fresh evidences for the purpose of reconsidering the issues, as the said exercise was done by the Settlement Commission pursuant to the directions issued by this Court - the scope of settlement of issues are confined with reference to the scope available under the provisions of the Act. The Settlement Commission is not empowered to go beyond the procedures contemplated as well as the scope enumerated. This Court is of an opinion that the petitioner has failed in extending their cooperation for the purpose of settling the issues by the Settlement Commission and thus, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief, as such, sought for in the present writ petition - Petition dismissed.
|