TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER As the facts leading to all the writ petitions are identical, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. For better appreciation, the facts involved in one of the writ petitions i.e., W.P.No.12131 of 2002, are briefly stated hereunder:- The petitioner-M/s.Maruthi Tex Print Processors Pvt. Limited, Hyderabad, is a concern registered with the Excise Department vide registration dated 05.08.1992 for manufacture of man-made fabrics (MMF) and also for manufacture of cotton fabrics under Tariff Heading 5406 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the course of business, search was carried out at various places, including the factory, registered office premises, their goodown and dealers' premises, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of M/s.Bhagwan Textiles under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. iv. an amount of Rs.47,11,332/- was demanded as mandatory penalty under Section 11 AC of Central Excise Act, 1944, and interest under Section 11AB of the Act was also demanded. v. A penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- was imposed for contravention of Rule 9(2), 52A(8), 173Q and 226 of Central Excise Rules, 1944." 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the CEGAT, Chennai. However, they withdrew the said appeal and thereafter, they have approached the Settlement Commission, Chennai, by moving an application under Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944, making an initial true and full disclosure of Rs.8,76,864/-, which is mandatory re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rics. Such an observation is factually incorrect, because in the trade parlance the term 'poonam' and 'spun' are related to the cotton fabrics only. When the seized documents are relied upon to quantify the fabrics cleared, the same has to be taken into consideration to determine the nature of the fabrics and its value also. 5. It was further contended that the petitioners, aggrieved by the order dated 05.05.1999, passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad, after filing an appeal before the CEGAT, Chennai, thinking that they can settle their matter before the Settlement Commission under Section 32E, withdrew the pending appeal before the CEGAT, Chennai, only for the purpose of getting immunity from prosecution and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the Central Excise Officer, having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner, by withdrawing the appeal from the file of the CEGAT, filed an appeal making an initial true and full disclosure of Rs.8,76,864/-, which is mandatory requirement to go before the Settlement Commission. However, the Settlement Commission, by order dated 08.03.2002, while confirming the entire order passed in Order in Original dated 05.05.1999, declined to grant immunity for prosecution. 8. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner, while approaching the first respondent, has made a true and full disclosure of his duty liability, which was not disclosed before the Central Excise Officer, having jurisdiction. The first respondent declined to grant the immun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
