TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P K. SHINDE, JJ. Mr. Swapnil Bangur i/b Mr. Sham V. Walve, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Jas Sanghavi i/b PDS Legal, Advocate for Respondent No.1. ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) 1] This Petition challenges the order passed by the Settlement Commission, thereby allowing the application filed by Respondent No.1 for settling the matter. 2] The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present Petition are as under: 3] Respondent No.1 is holding central excise registration and is engaged in the manufacture of Polyester Viscose Yarn of different varieties, falling under Chapter 55 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On a surprise visit conducted by the Officers of the Anti-Evasion Branch of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esent Petition has been filed. 6] Mr. Bangur, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, submits that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in not taking into consideration the law laid down by the Chennai High Court in the case of Commr of Cus. (AIR), Chennai vs. CUS. C. Ex.2002 (139) E.L.T. 512 (Mad.) Settlement Commission1. He further submits that since Respondent No.1 had not filed returns, provisions of Section 32E of the said Act could not have been invoked. He therefore submits that the order of the learned Settlement Commission is liable to be set aside. 7] Mr. Sanghavi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1, submits that the order passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and warrants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds of settlement claim, depending upon the nature and circumstances of case and complexity of case. The legislative intent behind Section 32E is to encourage the full and true disclosure of the duty liability and make payment thereof by the defaulters, while granting them immunity from the penal action. 10] It would be relevant to refer to the following observations of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Ltd (cited supra) while considering the pari materia provisions of the Customs Act. 44. The entire approach with regard to such legislation is to unearth frauds and dishonesty so as to collect the revenue for the Government. By this process in fact the duty which was illegally not paid by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
