TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 868X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion cannot be admitted. Once the application is admitted, till the end of the proceedings, the person who submits an application has to cooperate with the Settlement Commission for the purpose of settling the issues. The twin conditions admitted in the two conditions are of paramount importance. In view of the fact that once the issues are settled before the Settlement Commission, then there is no scope for reopening by the authorities and under those circumstances, these conditions are to be considered as vital in order to protect both the interest of the Department as well as the interest of the persons, who submits an application - it is sufficient if the findings of the Settlement Commission are considered. In the present case, the Revenue could establish their position based on Investigation Report along with the primary evidences recovered from the premises of the petitioner. However, the petitioner had neither agreed to the Revenue's stand nor produced any fresh evidences for the purpose of reconsidering the issues, as the said exercise was done by the Settlement Commission pursuant to the directions issued by this Court - the scope of settlement of issues are conf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, mainly contended that there was a discrepancy in Commissioner's Report and absolutely, there was no transparency in dealing with the seized hard disks. In the absence of any such transparency, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of rejection of the application filed for settling the issues. 6. The learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, drew the attention of this Court with reference to the objections filed by the petitioner in this regard. Detailed objections are filed elaborating the facts and circumstances, leading to non-transparency and nonadjudication of the contents in the two hard disks retrieved by the Officials of the Central Excise Intelligence Wing. Therefore, the matter is to be remitted back to the Settlement Commission for the purpose of conducting further investigation in respect of the hard disks and other objections raised by the petitioner for settling the issues. 7. The findings made by the Settlement Commission are unilateral in this regard. The objections filed by the petitioner were not considered in its real s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taining a full and true disclosure of his duty liability, which has not been disclosed before the Central Excise Officer having jurisdiction, the manner in which such liability has been derived, the additional amount of excise duty accepted to be payable by him and such other particulars, as may be prescribed, including the particulars of such excisable goods in respect of which he admits short levy on account of misclassification, under-valuation, inapplicability of exemption notification or CENVAT credit or otherwise and any such application shall be disposed of. 13. Therefore, the application submitted must contain full and true disclosure of duty liability, which has not been disclosed before the Central Excise Officer having jurisdiction. It is a mandatory pre-condition contemplated under Section 32-E of the Act. Thus, if the Settlement Commission, while scrutinisation of the materials available on record traced out any such non-disclosure of full and true materials and the duty liability and then, such an application is liable to be rejected at the admission stage. 14. Once the application is admitted based on the prima facie scrutinisation, then Section 32-F contem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s an application has to cooperate with the Settlement Commission for the purpose of settling the issues. 17. The twin conditions admitted in the above two conditions are of paramount importance. In view of the fact that once the issues are settled before the Settlement Commission, then there is no scope for reopening by the authorities and under those circumstances, these conditions are to be considered as vital in order to protect both the interest of the Department as well as the interest of the persons, who submits an application. 18. In this context, it is sufficient if the findings of the Settlement Commission are considered. 19. It is not in dispute that the application filed by the petitioner on 17.06.2010 was dealt with by the Settlement Commission and it was rejected on the ground that as the applicant vehemently rejects authenticity of GEQD report and also claims that the copy of the hard disks, which was given to him in the interest of natural justice, is no longer available for examination by the Bench. The Bench finds that the applicant has virtually stonewalled the proceedings. Besides discarding GEQD report, the applicant has apparently levelled wild c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was agreed to by the Bench. The Bench ordered for an investigation vide order dated 29.04.2013 by the Commissioner (Investigation) to conduct a detailed investigation on the aspects stated therein. After conducting the investigation, the Commissioner submitted his report dated 21.06.2013, a copy of which was sent to the Applicant along with letter dated 11.10.2013. The applicant was heard by the Bench on 25.09.2013. During the hearing Advocate raised technical issues relating to investigation ordered by the Bench, to which the Bench drew the attention of the Minutes of the Proceedings dated 06.02.2013. Thereafter the Advocate reiterated that he has made a true and full disclosure in his application wherein he had admitted additional duty liability of '1,19,67,923/- though the demand made in the Show Cause Notice was to the extent of '16,79,19,499/-. The Bench had made it very clear that there was no legal or procedural irregularities in ordering investigation since it was done on the request of the applicant during hearing held on 06.02.2013 and therefore the Applicant should confine to the facts, as stated by him in his Application vis-a-vis what has been brought out in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de by the Settlement Commission would reveal that the Commissioner's Investigation Report dated 21.06.2013 and its authenticity of the GEQD Report, cannot be disputed. Primary evidences were also recovered from the premises of the petitioner. Thus, the position of the Revenue was well established. In such circumstances, the petitioner has neither agreed to the Revenue's stand nor produced any fresh evidences to reconsider the matter. 23. Importantly, if the Report of the Commissioner (Investigation) is not agreeable to the petitioner-Assessee, then the petitioner-Company is expected to submit contra evidences to disprove the report filed by the Commissioner. 24. Mere objection in this regard is insufficient and based on such objections not supported with any evidences cannot be relied upon by the Settlement Commission for the purpose of settling the issues between the parties. Thus, it is an established principle, where the Competent Investigating Authority submitted a report in a particular manner and such a report is disputed by the Assessee, then the Assessee is obligated to submit evidences to disprove the findings in the Investigation Report, then alone the S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
