TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1032X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the conditions of section 32 E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 . Parties had proceeded on this basis. This Court is fortified in the view that is expressed by the judgment in Union of India v. Dharampal Satyapal [2013 (10) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] where it was held that It is true that on and after 01.06.2007 the Settlement Commission need not call for a report from the Commissioner before the settlement application is allowed to be proceeded with. However, the requirement that the settlement application shall contain a full and true disclosure continues to remain in the statue and it is, therefore, the duty of the Settlement Commission to examine this aspect by itself on the basis of explanation provided by the applicant. In the present case, the reasons furnished by the Commission for rejecting the petitioner s application i.e., the petitioner not making full disclosure, but rather persisting in its contention that the original value of clearances and the quantum that was cleared was the true and correct value, fully justified the decision that it took - petition dismissed. - W.P.(C) 2684/2016 - - - Dated:- 15-1-2019 - MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND MR. PRATEEK JALAN JJ. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elated person (M/s. Manjeet Traders). However, the applicant has not accepted the duty liability on products where the weight was mis-declared in the range of 60% to 80%. The applicant s contention is that goods have been sold by M/s. Manjeet Traders on piece basis and hence the mis-declaration of weight is immaterial. They have further contended that the department should not have loaded the value in proportion to the increase of weight and should have charged the duty on the price on which goods were sold by M/s. Manjeet Traders to unrelated persons. Further when the price at which products were sold by M/s Manjeet Traders was available from their balance sheet, the assessable value should not have been loaded. The contention of the applicant prima facie is not acceptable and looks illogical. It is pertinent to mention that in the invoice, the value of the product was shown on kg. basis and not on piece basis. Only in the challan, the correct weight was mentioned; which was in majority of the cases higher by 60 to 80%. If the goods were sold only on piece basis, there was no necessity for the applicant to mis-declare the weight. The cast iron products are mostly sold on weight ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disclosure by the applicant. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 27. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Bench observes that the applicant has not only denied a substantial part of the demand but has also contested the evidence collected by the Revenue. They have claimed certain facts which need further investigation by the Revenue. Therefore, the Bench observes that the case is not one that can be settled in this forum. In view of the complex issues of fact raised by the rival parties to the case, it would be more appropriate that the case is adjudicated by the proper Officer after appreciation of facts and evidence now produced by the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that given the mandate of Section 32L(1), the Commission was bound to consider the application and record its reasons for its order, and could not reject the application in the manner it did i.e. to remit the matter to the Adjudicating Authority. Learned counsel submitted that the settlement offer made by the petitioner was in fact a full and true disclosure, which compelled the Commission to examine the merits of its application and decide the terms on which the settlement, if any, co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, i.e. empowering the Commission to grant to the person concerned immunity from prosecution for any offence and in effect settle the issue, the satisfaction should be that the applicant has cooperated with the Settlement Commission in the proceedings before it and has made a full and true disclosure of its duty liability . In the present case, the Commission had entertained the petitioner s application expressly subject to the condition that the applicant show at the time of final hearing that they fulfill the conditions of section 32 E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 . Parties had proceeded on this basis. The ratio of H.H. Interior (supra) cannot, in any event, apply to such a case. 6. That similar considerations might weigh in the minds of the Tribunal at the preliminary stage [by reason of the conditions spelt out in Section 32E and 32F with respect to making of full disclosure]; does not in any manner constrain the power of the Commission to reject the application before it at the final stage, on the ground that full disclosure is not made and that the applicant has not cooperated with it. 7. This Court is fortified in the view that is expressed by the judgment in U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complex issues of fact and law are involved. 8. Likewise the Allahabad High Court held in Vinay Wires Product Pvt. Ltd. v. Director General of Central Excise Intelligence 2014 (307) ELT 438 (All):- 26 . The Settlement Commission has given good and cogent reasons for sending the case back to the adjudicating authority. The Settlement Commission noticed that the applicants had not accepted a substantial part of the duty liability and had in fact contested the evidence collected by the Revenue as being fabricated and tampered with. It also noticed that the Revenue had given reasons to substantiate its position regarding investigation as well as the quantification of duty liability. In such a situation, the Settlement Commission thought it appropriate, particularly when the applicants had not made a true and full disclosure and that complex questions of fact, which required appreciation of evidence, were required to be settled through adjudication. A fair amount of discretion has to be given to the Settlement Commission in cases where matters are placed before it for settlement keeping in mind the well settled principle that settlement is not akin to adjudication. 9. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
