TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment, that the petitioner did not have any manufacturing activity, as would be borne out from the Chartered Engineer's certificate or even the panchnama drawn by the department, would be venturing into examination of factual aspects wholly impermissible in exercise of writ jurisdiction against the order of Settlement Commission. We do not find that order of Settlement Commission can be stated to be against the law or the provisions of the Central Excise Act. - Decided against the petitioner - SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 101 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 13-4-2016 - MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. A.Y. KOGJE, JJ. FOR THE PETITONER : ANANDODAYA S MISHRA, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : MS AMEE YAJNIK, ADVOCATE ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty of ₹ 1 core (rounded off) should be recovered with interest and penalties. 3. The petitioner applied for settlement of the case by the Commission. The Commission, after verifying the disclosures made by the petitioner and duty paid, on admitted facts, proceeded to dispose of the settlement case by the impugned order. Before the Settlement Commission, the petitioner had raised principally two arguments. First was that the petitioner was engaged in trading of goods and not manufacturing and that therefore, was not liable to pay excise duty. Second grievance of the petitioner was that by merely on the projection of the petitioner as a manufacturer to disguise the identity of the true manufacturer, the authorities had included the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reported in 2004-TIOL-29-HCDEL- CX, in which, referring to various decisions of the Supreme Court, it was observed that the sole overall limitation of the Commissioner appears to be that, it should be in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The scope of inquiry whether by the High Court under Article 226 or by the Supreme Court under Article 136 is the same whether the order of Commission is contrary to any of the provisions of the Act and, if so, apart from ground of bias, fraud and malice which constitute a separate and independent category, has it prejudiced the petitioner. 5. Reverting back to the facts of the case, as noted, the Commission considered both the grievances of the petitioner but did not find merit in the same. Wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
