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 1032 - HC - Central ExciseRejection of Settlement Application - rejection on the ground that petitioner not making full disclosure - Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - clandestine removal - suppression of true quantity and under valuation of the goods - petitioner contends that given the mandate of Section 32L(1), the Commission was bound to consider the application and record its reasons for its order, and could not reject the application in the manner it did i.e. to remit the matter to the Adjudicating Authority. Held that:- This Court is of the opinion, that the petitioner’s submissions with respect to the lack of jurisdiction or authority of the Commission to reject the application after entertaining it under Section 32E are insubstantial. The rejection of an application is possible at both stages – either at the stage of admission [Section 32E] or later, at the stage of hearing [Section 32K] - In the present case, the Commission had entertained the petitioner’s application expressly subject to the condition that “the applicant show at the time of final hearing that they fulfill the conditions of section 32 E of the Central Excise Act, 1944”. Parties had proceeded on this basis. This Court is fortified in the view that is expressed by the judgment in Union of India v. Dharampal Satyapal [2013 (10) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] where it was held that It is true that on and after 01.06.2007 the Settlement Commission need not call for a report from the Commissioner before the settlement application is allowed to be proceeded with. However, the requirement that the settlement application shall contain a full and true disclosure continues to remain in the statue and it is, therefore, the duty of the Settlement Commission to examine this aspect by itself on the basis of explanation provided by the applicant. In the present case, the reasons furnished by the Commission for rejecting the petitioner’s application i.e., the petitioner not making full disclosure, but rather persisting in its contention that the original value of clearances and the quantum that was cleared was the true and correct value, fully justified the decision that it took - petition dismissed.
|