TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J. S/Shri V. Sridharan with Prakash Shah i/b PDS Legal, for the Petitioner. Shri P.S. Jetly, for the Respondent. [Order]. - P.C. : This petition is preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 15th November, 2006 passed by the Settlement Commission, Customs Central Excise, Additional Bench, Mumbai ("the Commission" for short) on the application made by the petitioner for settlement of dispute under Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ("the Act" for short). 2. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner against the impugned order, relevant facts need to be noticed at the outset. Background Facts : 3. M/s. Mandhana Dyeing, the petitioner herein were served with the show cause-cum-demand notice dated 9th January, 2006 by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-II demanding duty of Rs. 4,15,25,760/- besides demanding the penalty and interest under the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder. The petitioner 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 Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), the applicant shall within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order under sub-section (1) allowing the application to be proceeded with, pay the amount of additional duty admitted by him as payable and shall furnish proof of such payment to the Settlement Commission. Sub-section (4) lays down that if the Settlement Commission is satisfied, on an application made in this behalf by the assessee that he is unable for good and sufficient reasons to pay the amount referred to in sub-section (3), within the time specified in that sub-section, it may extend the time for payment of the amount which remains unpaid or allow payment thereof by instalments, if the assessee furnishes adequate security for the payment thereof. Based on the frame of Section 35F, the submission is : when the Settlement Commission allows the application to be proceeded with then within 30 days of the receipt of a copy of the order, the applicant is required to pay the amount of additional duty admitted by him as payable with proof of payment thereof. According to Mr. Sridharan, the petitioner having admitted an amount of Rs. 42,93,771/- petitioner c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .), dated 9th June, 1999. The various provisions of sections in Chapter V provide details of the functioning of the Settlement Commission. The Central objective of the Settlement Commission is to provide quick and easy settlement of tax dispute of high revenue stake so as to save the time and energy of both, the Litigant and the Department adding to the proverb "time saved is money saved". Any assessee can make an application to the Settlement Commission containing full and true disclosure of his duty liability which has not been disclosed before the Central Excise Officer. The applicant has to accept the additional amount of central excise duty payable by him and such liability should be not less than Rs.2/- lac in a particular case. With this background, we may turn to the relevant Section for the purpose of deciding the controversy involved in the present petition i.e. Section 32(F) of the Act. Section 32F : Procedure on receipt of an application under Section 32F : (1) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1) of Section 32(E), the Settlement Commission shall call for a report from the Commission of Central Excise having jurisdiction and on the basis of the materials ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Central Board of Excise and Customs from time to time on the amount remaining unpaid, be recovered, as the sum due to Central Government by the Central Excise Officer having jurisdiction over the assessee in accordance with the provisions of section 11. (6) ........... (7) ............ (8) ............ (9) ............ (10) ............ (11) ............ Consideration : 13. Having heard rival parties and having examined the impugned order passed by the Settlement Commission, it is necessary to examine sub-section 3 of Section 32F, which specifically lays down that subject to the provisions of section (4), the applicant shall within thirty days of the receipt of a copy of the order under sub-section (1) allowing the application to be proceeded with, pay the amount of additional duty admitted by him as payable and shall furnish proof of such payment to the Settlement Commission. A bare reading of this sub-section, unequivocally goes to show that the admitted liability is required to be paid by the applicant within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order under sub-section 1 of Section 32F. The question is what do you mean by additional amount of duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en be appealed to whittle down the statutory language which is otherwise unambiguous. The intention of the legislator in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions particularly where the language is plain and unambiguous. A rigid attitude would inhibit a one time tax evader or unintending defaulter from making a clean breast of his affairs and would also unnecessarily strain the investigation resources of the Government. 16. Having examined the statutory provisions of Section 35F in general and sub-section (3) and (4) in particular in the light of the settled principles of interpretation, it is clear that the Settlement Commission can either accept the application as it is or reject the same in toto. In the present case, Settlement Commission has erroneously borrowed figures from the petitioner' letter dated 12th October, 2006 of the petitioner, the contents of which are already reproduced in paragraph 4 (supra) to hold that the petitioner has admitted total duty liability in the sum of Rs. 3,12,75,928/- as demanded in show cause notice. Whereas, bare reading of the aforesaid letter reveals that the petitioner admitted their liability only to the ext ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n because the particular part thereof on which the High Court relies is inextricably connected with the other part which the High Court has not taken into consideration." 19. Having seen the settled position of law, it is clear that the admission must be taken altogether or not at all. Where an admission is made subject to a condition or qualification, the condition and the qualifying part of the statement must also be put in and considered. It was not permissible for the Settlement Commission, to ignore the substracted figures shown by the petitioner in their letter dated 12th October, 2006 and make them part of the admitted duty liability. 20. With the aforesaid backdrop, if one turns to the factual aspect of the case in hand, the petitioner in its letter dated 12th October, 2006 specifically informed the Settlement Commission that they are not admitting the entire amount as mentioned in the show-cause notice. The petitioner has admitted only Rs. 42,92,771/-. The Settlement Commission has erroneously held that the petitioner is not entitled to deduct rate of duty to the tune of Rs. 81,74,732/-, deem credit amounting to Rs. 2,57,59,192/- and duty at the rate of Rs. 75/- per LM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
