Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (4) TMI 932 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

2016 (4) TMI 932 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT - 2016 (331) E.L.T. 550 (Cal.) - Maintainability - Whether the writ petition is maintainable - Offices of the writ petitioner is situated in Orissa and major part of the cause of action arose outside the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court - Held that:- the Additional Bench of the Commission at Kolkata, under the statutory rules, having jurisdiction over the entire eastern zone, which includes the State of Orissa, after hearing, had passed the order. Th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

provisions in section 32E(1) of the Act, the respondents, “to have the case settled,” and “before adjudication” , instead of filing a reply to the notice and having the case adjudicated, filed applications before the Commission for settlement. So the respondents opted for settlement before the Commission, - a statutory forum created for the said purpose. Thus having opted for settlement and having accepted the amount of excise duty payable by them, the respondents cannot now turn back and chall .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f “immunity from prosecution for any offence under this Act and also either wholly or in part from the imposition of any penalty and fine” (emphasis supplied), the order of penalty cannot be severed from the order of prosecution. It is a composite order. The words “and also” make the order of prosecution and penalty inseverable. Since an order passed by the Commission is an agreement in a statutory form, the respondents, having been granted immunity from prosecution, cannot challenge the imposit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt is either to be accepted or rejected. The settlement tax cannot be accepted only in part.”

Whether payment made pursuant to an order passed by the Commission can be conditional - Held that:- After order was passed by the Settlement Commission, the respondents had deposited the penalty, without prejudice to their rights available under the law. In our view since the respondents had filed applications for settlement admitting the allegations in the notice and having accepted immunit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

quashed. - Decided partly in favour of appellant - MAT No. 1353 of 2015 With CAN No. 8693 of 2015 - Dated:- 1-10-2015 - SOUMITRA PAL AND MIR DARA SHEKO, JJ For the Petitioner : Mr. R. Bharadwaj, Advocate, Mr. K.K. Maity, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate, Mr. Agnibesh Sengupta, Advocate, Mr. Arunava Deb, Advocate. ORDER SOUMITRA PAL, J.:- This appeal, preferred by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Services Tax, Bhubaneshwar-I, Commissionerate, is dire .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r, 2011, passed by the Customs and Excise Settlement Commissioner, Additional Bench, Kolkata, is set aside to the extent it purports to levy penalty on the petitioners. The concerned respondents shall forthwith, and in any case within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, refund the penalty amount paid by and/or realized from the respective writ petitioners. (page 781 of the stay application). In this appeal the appellant has challenged the said judgment on princ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d passed the order in Kolkata does not make the writ petitioner amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this High Court. On merits, relying on the grounds of appeal, it was submitted that the impugned judgment proceeds as if it is an appeal from an order passed in adjudication. The question of evasion of duty was not the issue. Though the Settlement Commission did not go into the issue whether duty was leviable or not, the total approach of the learned Single Judge was that there was no liability t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f there was no violation of the statute and the Rules as stated in the writ petition, instead of applying for settlement, the respondents/writ petitioners should have opted for adjudication before the Central Excise Officer who determines the amount of excise duty. Since under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short the Act ), there is a difference between adjudication and settlement, whereas in the former the Central Excise Officer, who adjudicates, has no jurisdiction to grant immunity from pr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

alty. Further payment of the penalty imposed in a settlement proceeding cannot be accepted conditionally as it would make section 32K otiose. In the facts and circumstances as the respondents in their applications had admitted the allegations in the show cause notice, the learned Judge erred in holding that the allegations of fraud, suppression and misstatement are bald, totally vague and devoid of any particulars. In short, submission was that as it is evident from the notice that the responden .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

red to the following judgments in support of his submission which are as under:- (1) Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v. The Union of India & Others: 2007-(218)-ELT-0495-BOM, (2) Brindavan Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Meerut: 2009-(237)-ELT-0658-DEL and (3) the unreported judgment delivered on 6th July, 2015 in MAT 1856 of 2014 (Venky Hi-Tech Ispat Ltd. v. Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission). Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned senior advocate, on the point of main .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed when the goods were sold to Bharat Aluminium, duty was paid. According to him it is a case of valuation dispute and not of clandestine removal of goods. There was no motive to evade duty. Moreover, as section 32E does not speak of evasion of duty and when under section 32F the applicant makes a true and full disclosure, the Commission has to enquire and decide the matter. Submission was though a settlement under the Act is a package, however in appropriate cases Courts can examine the decisio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

arned Single Judge is correct. Moreover, the Commission should not have relied on the annual report of the appellants as it was not part of the records. As immunity from prosecution is a separate limb in the order of the Commission and revenue neutrality is the basis of the judgment and the learned Single Judge has given adequate reasons for waiver of penalty, it need not be inferred with. Mr. Khaitan has relied on the following judgments in support of his submission which are as follows:- 1) Mu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lloys Ltd. v. Union of India: 2004(168) ELT 3 (SC); 9) Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd. v. Union of India: 2005 (180) ELT 5 (Del.); 10) Commissioner of C. Ex., Pune v. Coca-Cola India Pvt. Ltd.: 2007 (213) ELT 490 (SC); 11) Viva Herba Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India: 2010(260) ELT 168 (Bom.); 12) Swasthik Tobacco Factory v. Cus. & C. Ex. Settlement Commission: 2012 (281) ELT 674 (Mad.) and 13) Nirlon Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai: 2015 (320) ELT 22 (SC). The issues to be considered .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

heir offices situated in Orissa which are outside the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. However, the Additional Bench of the Commission at Kolkata, under the statutory rules, having jurisdiction over the entire eastern zone, which includes the State of Orissa, after hearing, had passed the order. The appellant had participated in the proceedings. Hence, keeping Article 226(2) of the Constitution in mind, as a part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial limits of the Calc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Madras High Court. The judgment in Brindavan Beverages (supra) is also not applicable as it was a judgment on a statutory appeal from CESTAT, whereas in the case in hand, the authorities had participated in the proceedings before the Commission at Kolkata which had passed the impugned order. So far as the merit of the case in concerned, evidently notice dated 11th October, 2010 was issued. Admittedly the respondents after receiving the said notice instead of giving reply within the time as stip .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

their duty liability and had co-operated fully during the settlement proceedings, Commission recording its satisfaction and considering the facts and circumstances, settled the case under section 32F of the Act by passing an order, the relevant portion of which is set out hereinunder:- Central Excise duty: The Central Excise Duty in this case is settled at ­66,64,19,436. This amount has already been deposited by the applicant, the same is ordered to be appropriated by the Commissioner withi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rom penalty as is in excess of ­4,00,00,00 (Rupees four crore only) and to the coapplicants Shri Rajesh Mohata from penalty as is in excess of ­5,00,000 (Rupees five lakh only), Shri TPK Patro from penalty as is in excess of ­5,00,000 (Rupees five lakh only), Shri P.S Reddy from penalty as is in excess ­5,00,000 (Rupees five lakh only), and Shri Purushottam Kumar Choudhury) from penalty as is in excess of V5,00,000 (rupees five lakh only) under the provisions invoked in the SCN. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g it as severable and legally unsustainable. The short point is as the respondents had admitted the allegations in the show cause notice and had also accepted the duty demanded and the entire liability in the notice, can the penalty imposed by the Commission be challenged. The answer has to be in the negative for the reasons set out hereinafter. It is to be noted that settlement means an official agreement that ends an argument between two people . (Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary). In the c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ow turn back and challenge the penalty imposed by filing a writ petition because it would mean arguing the case on merit which under section 33 of the Act can only be dealt with and decided by an adjudicating authority. Had there been adjudication and had duty liability been established, under section 11AC the respondents might have faced prosecution from which the Commission had granted immunity. Further as to whether the order directing imposition of penalty is severable or not, the answer can .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

having been granted immunity from prosecution, cannot challenge the imposition of penalty only. Under the statute the order of penalty is not segregable. As the order of penalty and prosecution cannot be segregated, either the applicant accepts the order in its entirety or the settlement fails. Admittedly a package, an order passed by the Commission, should be read as a whole. It is to be noted that the learned Judge even while holding penalty being segregable and unsustainable held It is true .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

art there is another aspect of the matter. We find that after order was passed by the Settlement Commission, as evident from the letters dated 17th October, 2011, the respondents had deposited the penalty, without prejudice to their rights available under the law. In our view since the respondents had filed applications for settlement admitting the allegations in the notice and having accepted immunity from prosecution and as the order is inseparable, such reservation of rights is unacceptable. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on admitting of the allegations contained in the show cause notice and the duty demand proposed therein. The applicants are not raising the issue of time bar in the interests of settlement though majority of the demand is time barred. 57. The applicants submit that while they are admitting the entire liability as proposed in the show cause notice, the applicants pray to adjust the amount of ₹ 66,64,49,436 already deposited by them against the admitted duty liability. , (emphasis supplied) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ascertainable by the Department. (page 778 of the stay application). Since the respondents had admitted the allegations in the notice, the demand of duty and the entire liability proposed therein, the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the allegations are bald and vague and there was no suppression. Perusing the judgment under challenge, we find that the learned Single Judge had proceeded as if the Court was adjudicating matter and thus erred in passing the order setting aside the levy o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version