9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er faced with the aforesaid show cause-cum-demand notice, finding it difficult to explain their financial transactions in its true letter and spirit, moved an application for settlement of case within prescribed time under Section 32(E) of the Act before the Settlement Commission, Mumbai, as stated hereinabove. 4. The petitioner admitted their liability to the extent of Rs. 42,93,771/-vide their letter dated 12th October, 2006. The said letter is produced on record as Exhibit-"J". The contents thereof are reproduced hereinbelow : 1. Total duty demanded in SCN Rs.4,15,25,760/- 2. (-) Effective rate of duty applicable Rs. 81,74,732/- .......................... 3. (-) Deem Credit applicable Rs. 3,33,51,028/- Rs. 2,57,59,192/- ............................ Rs. 75,91,836/- ============ 4. (-) Duty @ Rs. 75/- per LMT for this period 1-4-2002 to 28-9-2002 (This is as per the value of the department) Rs. 32,98,065/- Hence total duty payable is Rs. 42,93,771/- 5. The Settlement Commission, while admitting the above application for settlement, directed the petitioner to deposit total a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f payment thereof. According to Mr. Sridharan, the petitioner having admitted an amount of Rs. 42,93,771/- petitioner could not have been directed to pay Rs. 3,12,75,928/- by the Settlement Commission. He further submits that as to whether or not the petitioner are liable to pay more can only be looked into at the final disposal of the application and not at the stage of admission. At the stage of admission, the Settlement Commission is duty bound to demand only admitted duty liability. Mr. Sridharan in nutshell submitted that the impugned order to the extent it directs deposit of Rs. 3,12,75,928/- is erroneous. It is liable to be quashed and set aside. 8. Mr. Sridharan, with the aforesaid backdrop went on to make submissions on the merits of the matter, the consideration of which is not necessary for the view taken by us. 9. Per contra, Mr. Jately, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submitted that the petitioner, in their own letter dated 12th October, 2006 (erroneously described as 12th December, 2006) have admitted their liability to the extent of Rs. 3,12,75,928/- as per show cause notice issued by Revenue as such impugned order passed by the Settlement Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll call for a report from the Commission of Central Excise having jurisdiction and on the basis of the materials contained in such report and having regard to the nature and circumstances of the case or the complexity of the investigation involved therein, the Settlement Commission may, by order, allow the application to be proceeded with or reject the application : Provided that an application shall not be rejected under this sub-section, unless an opportunity has been given to the applicant of being heard : Provided further that the Commissioner of Central Excise shall furnish such report within a period of one month of the receipt of the communication from the Settlement Commission, failing which it shall be presumed that the Commissioner of Central Excise has no objection to such application; but he may raise objections at the time of hearing fixed by the Settlement Commission for admission of the application and the date of such hearing shall be communicated by the Settlement Commission to the applicant and the Commissioner of Central Excise within a period not exceeding two months from the date of receipt of such application, unless the presiding officer of the Bench extend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder sub-section 1 of Section 32F. The question is what do you mean by additional amount of duty admitted by the petitioner ? 14. The object of the legislation as stated hereinabove is not to close the door for settlement. The object of the Legislature is to open the doors for settlement. It is well settled canon of construction that in construing the provisions of a beneficial legislation, the Court should adopt the construction, which advances, fulfills and furthers the object of the Act rather than the one, which would defeat the same and prevent settlement. Beneficial statutes should not be construed too rigidly as it was for the protection of certain class of persons that the statute was enacted. The intention of the legislature and the policy underlying it has also to be kept in mind. As far as possible, the language of the statute, unless it goes against the intention of the specific provisions, must be construed consistent with the changing social attitudes. The well settled principle of interpretation is that a statutory provision should be construed according to the plain natural meaning of its language. When the language of a particular provision is clear and according ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of the aforesaid letter reveals that the petitioner admitted their liability only to the extent of Rs. 42,92,771/- towards payment of duty. It appears that the Settlement Commission, ignoring the mandate of sub-clause 3 of Section 35F went on to lift certain figures from the said letter, ignoring substractions indicated in the said letter by the petitioner from the duty demanded in the show cause notice which in our view is erroneous and impermissible. 17. The law dealing with the admission is clearly well established. It is well settled that the admission unless it is separable has to be taken as a whole or not at all. In the case of Motabhoy Mulla Essabhoy v. Mulji Haridas - AIR 1915 Privy Council (2) has observed that; "It is permissible for a tribunal to accept part and reject the rest of any witness's testimony. But an admission in pleading cannot be so dissected and if it is made subject to a condition, it must either be accepted subject to the condition or not accepted at all." 18. In the case of Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh - AIR 1952 SC 343, the Apex Court has observed as under : "It is settled law that an admission made by a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 732/-, deem credit amounting to Rs. 2,57,59,192/- and duty at the rate of Rs. 75/- per LMT for the period from 1st April, 2002 to 28th September, 2002 amounting to Rs. 32,98,065/-. 21. In our considered view, the order passed by the Settlement Commission dated 15th November, 2006 is liable to be set aside to the extent it calls upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 3,12,75,928/-. Considering the admission of the petitioner in the letter dated 12th October, 2006 (Exhibit-J to the petition), the petitioner is liable to deposit a total sum of Rs. 42,92,771/-including amounts already paid. Thus, the figure of demand made by the Settlement Commission in the sum of Rs. 3,12,75,928/- stands substituted with that of Rs. 42,92,771/- which the petitioner shall deposit within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order by the Settlement Commission. After deposit of the said amount, the Settlement Commission is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. In case, the petitioner fails to deposit the aforesaid amount as directed within stipulated time, the Settlement Commission shall be at liberty to reject the application for settlement giving liberty to the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
