TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and then also sought CENVAT credit - It is an attempt to supplement the concession as it were during the course of the proceedings - an indication that it somehow sought to tide-over and close the dispute even though there is no common moot point or the possibility of a moot point with the revenue - Petition dismissed. - W.P.(C) 10804/2016 , C.M. APPL. 42297/2016 - - - Dated:- 15-11-2016 - MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. NAJMI WAZIRI JJ. Petitioner Through: Sh. A.K. Prasad and Ms. Priyanka Goel, Advocates. Respondents Through: Sh. Sanjeev Narula, Sr. Standing Counsel and Sh. Abhishek Ghai, Advocate. O R D E R 1. The petitioner was issued with two Show Cause Notices (SCNs) on 30.07.2013 and 09.10.2013 by the Commissionerat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 05.08.2015. Thereafter the matter was proceeded with on those separate dates. By the impugned order, after considering the submissions of the materials before it, the Settlement Commission declined relief. The appellant, therefore, approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The appellant urges firstly that the impugned order is erroneous inasmuch as it violates principles of natural justice. Learned counsel highlighted that the last clarificatory report, with respect to discrepancies in the two DG sets was never made available to the petitioner and this serious infirmity vitiates the impugned order. It was urged secondly and more substantially that the tabular chart supplied by the assessee/petitioner c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relief. It was highlighted that the petitioner was prima facie guilty of several violations and that its attempt to show reconciliation of accounts was really an effort to wriggle out of its liabilities. It was highlighted that non-payment of duty for manufactured goods, i.e. 1965 DG sets was a serious violation which itself warranted adjudication and appropriate penalty. Learned counsel submitted that the attempt of the petitioner was to further compound that violation by passing-off as if these goods were manufactured in Kathua for which duty was not paid whereas the fact was that these had in fact been manufactured in Delhi, and claimed refund. In these circumstances, the attempt to say that the parties were in fact agreed on facts, was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e present case in asmuch as (i) in the final order dated 5.2.14, both units i.e. one in Ludhiana and other in exempted area Udhampur were registered with Central Excise unlike the present case where the Delhi unit is not registered till date and (ii) both the revenue and the applicant had admitted that demand in both the SCNs were of same goods whereas in the present case, the goods are different i.e. 1554 at Jammu unit and 1965 at Delhi unit so no co-relation can be made that the goods were similar at this stage. Even considering the duplication in demand, there still exists a difference of 411 DG sets which cannot be explained at this stage. Even assuming in the additional submission of the applicant, the difference is of 27 DG sets, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts claim of duplication of DG Sets is factually incorrect and liable to be rejected. In the additional submissions submitted by the applicant vide letter dated 29.1.16 and 1.2.16, the manner of explaining the difference of 411 and admitting that difference of only 27 DG sets exists is factually incorrect and denied by the revenue. The Bench observes that the applicant have rejected the evidences given by the Revenue in respect of their duty demand without convincing explanation. From these facts, it can be inferred that there is no true and correct disclosure by the applicant. 33. Further, the Bench observes that in this case the stand of the applicant and the department are at huge variance. For an issue to be settled by the Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... principles of natural justice that vitiates the entire order of the Settlement Commission, in the opinion of the Court, is without merit. The real dispute as it were did not turn on whether there was a discrepancy with respect to 2 or 27 DG sets. It concerned the petitioner s acts of omission and whether it admitted its liability. As the Settlement Commission noticed, it denied 82% of its liability whilst applying under Section 32E and approaching the Settlement Commission in the first instance. This meant that the tabular reconciliation it admitted before the Settlement Commission was really in furtherance of its effort to have the entire matter resolved through some sort of sanitation exercise as it were. It is undeniable that the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
