TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 707X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement Commission, it is seen that no new averments are placed in the Writ Petition. All the averments in the Writ Petition are part of the settlement application that are considered and covered in the Settlement Commission proceedings culminating in the impugned orders. Though this court does not want to get into the merits of the disputes, it is difficult to lose sight of the fact that some of the claims of the petitioner is patently at error - Rightly, the Commission had directed to pay the amount. Demand of ₹ 7,47,15,817/- being the duty on the manufactured goods escaping assessment at the time of de-bonding of the Petitioner's Unit - Held that:- The conditional permission of the Assistant Commissioner is at worst a concession/relaxation extended to the petitioner. It is unclear whether such a concession is permissible in law. However, it is certain that the final products in question manufactured under bond availing the benefits of the EOU Scheme had to be cleared for exports without illegitimately availing any export incentives/benefits like DEPB or Draw Back. But the finished goods under question were exported under claim of DEPB Drawback which is not permissib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order, but reflects the grievance of the applicant against the interpretation of the facts leading to the conclusions recorded in the Order by the Bench and therefore in the circumstances there is no case for rectification of mistake. In response to the additional submission in the ROM application filed on 12.07.2017 by the petitioner, another order dated 21.07.2010 reiterating the dismissal of the ROM application came to be passed by the learned Settlement Commission. 4. Against the orders of the learned Settlement Commission, three Writ Petitions WP No 9402, 9403 and 9984, all of 2010 were filed by the petitioner before this court against one or the other orders of the learned Settlement Commission. Writ Petition No 9403 9984 of 2010 were dismissed by this Court by a common order dated 30.06.2011 which was brought to the notice of this Court by the respondents. 5. The petitioner contends that the orders are ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and left with no other alternative remedy they are forced to approach this Court in a Writ Petition. On perusal of the impugned orders, it is seen that after considering the disclosures and defence of the petitioner some portions of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion for settlement of the disputes. It shuts the rigours of the Adjudication proceedings for the applicant besides providing immunities from penalties and prosecutions. Full and truthful disclosure by the applicant is a necessary pre requisite under the scheme. There is no scope for disagreements for the applicants in the proceedings before the settlement commission. That is why the commission is saddled with powers to send back the case for adjudication in the event it is satisfied that the applicant has not cooperated with the commission. Therefore, it is not open for the petitioner to agitate facts before the commission. Needless to say, in matters of disagreement, the conclusion of the Commission is final. 8. The petitioner assails the other impugned Order that is, the Final Order No.03/2010-CE dated 08.06.2010 as illegal and arbitrary. On perusal of the Petition, it is seen that no grounds are made out to suggest that the impugned Final Order of the Settlement Commission suffers from illegality. Under the Scheme of the Act, the Settlement Commission is not an adjudicating body. They are saddled with the powers to settle disputes on the basis of voluntary disclosures of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h this court does not want to get into the merits of the disputes, it is difficult to lose sight of the fact that some of the claims of the petitioner is patently at error. 11. One of the dispute of facts raised by the petitioner before the Settlement Commission and in this Writ Petition pertains to the demand of ₹ 50,41,149/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Forty One Thousad One Hundred and Forty Nine only) as set out in Annexure VI of the SCN. The demand was made against the diversion of power manufactured out of the imported duty free coal under the EOU scheme to other DTA Units which is a serious offence under the law carrying penal consequences besides causing substantial loss of revenue to the exchequer. The appropriate duty becomes payable when the power produced by the duty free coal imported under the EOU Scheme is diverted to DTA Units. And the merit in the demand can not be disputed. Therefore, the petitioner had contested the demand on the ground of limitation. But the goods imported under the EOU scheme are bonded. Also it is a preposterous stand to make that the Department is in the know of the fact of utilizing the duty free bonded goods imported under the EOU Scheme fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
