TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 262
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facility of Duty Draw Back which was purchased by them from the manufacturers viz. - M/s. Ambika Solvex Ltd., Akola (Noticee No. 4), and M/s. Dhanlaxmi Solvex Pvt. Ltd., Shajapur (Noticee No. 5)., which have manufactured the said DOC under bond availing facility of Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 by procuring Food Grade Hexane without payment of duty from petroleum companies by following the procedure prescribed under Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001, as amended and Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001 and used such Food Grade Hexane, procured without payment of Central Excise duty in the manufacture of De-Oiled Cake which were purchased and subsequently exported by the Noticee no. 1 under claim of Drawback. To suppress this fact from the Customs and Central Excise Authorities, the manufacturers of DOC viz. - M/s. Ambika Solvex Ltd., Akola (Noticee No. 4), and M/s. Dhanlaxmi Solvex Pvt. Ltd., Shajapur (Noticee No. 5), in connivance with the exporter (the Noticee No. 1), have not issued ARE-2 for removal of the said DOC and issued only the export invoices. 12.2 It also appears....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icating authority requesting to keep the hearing in abeyance as they were in the process of filing an application for settlement of the case before the Settlement Commission. The noticee No. 4 had also under his letter dated 21-3-2012 requested for adjournment but on some other ground. 5.3 The Additional Commissioner-the adjudicating authority, however, did not accept the request of the petitioners and proceeded to pass the impugned order. With respect to the latest request for adjournment of the hearing, he observed as under :- "21. I have carefully gone through the case records, submissions made by the noticees in their defence replies, I find that personal hearings in the case were fixed on 9-12-2011, 9-1-2012 and on 21-3-2012 but none of the Noticees remained present. Noticee No. 1, 2 & 3 in response to the letters communicating them the date fixed for hearings have requested to keep the adjudication proceedings in abeyance for the reason that the Soyabean Processors Association of India have made a representation before the C.B.E. & C. on the issue. At last, they informed vide their letter dated 21-3-2012 that they are in process to file an application for settlement of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not be possible for the petitioners to approach the Settlement Commission. Such petition is opposed by the respondents on the ground that there was no duty on the Additional Commissioner to wait indefinitely. The petitioners were granted sufficient time previously, as prayed for. 7. Learned counsel Shri Modh for the petitioners vehemently contended that the Additional Commissioner committed a grave error in rejecting the application of the petitioners for adjournment. He submitted that the purpose of providing for Settlement Commission is to achieve finality to tax disputes. The Additional Commissioner was duty bound to grant reasonable time to the petitioners when they had shown clear inclination to approach the Settlement Commission. 7.1 Inviting our attention to the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Mandhana Dyeing v. Union of India reported in 2010 (251) E.L.T. 481, counsel submitted that the Additional Commissioner ought to have kept in mind the very purpose of setting up Settlement Commission and accordingly ought to have give some reasonable time to the petitioners to make proper application for settlement. 7.2 Counsel submitted that the order of the Addition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as the same has been filed. In view of the above, we request you to kindly keep the matter in abeyance." 10. Such request was turned down by the Commissioner who thereupon proceeded to adjudicate the show cause notice proceedings with the aid of material collected by the Department and the written replies of the noticees. 11. There was no statutory duty on part of the/Additional Commissioner to grant adjournment to enable the petitioners to approach the Settlement Commission. His duty was to consider the request of the petitioners on the basis of reasonableness. The petitioners had no right to seek unlimited adjournments nor seek adjournment without any basis. In fact, proviso to Section 122A of the Act provides that the adjournment shall not be granted for more than three times. 12. On previous two occasions, the petitioners had prayed for adjournment on the ground that the Association was to approach the C.B.E. & C. for finding some solution. The third request was made on the premise that the petitioners would like to approach the Settlement Commission. In such request letter also, the petitioners did not specify any time within which they would make such an application nor ....