9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certain extent and in some cases contending that no due is payable. The first respondent filed counter in those proceedings. The second respondent has posted the matter for admission on 7-1-2008. However, by an order dated 25-1-2008, the second respondent was pleased to reject the applications filed by the petitioners. Challenging the same, these writ petitions have been filed. 3. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the second respondent rejected the claim of the petitioners on three grounds viz., (i) the amount admitted by the petitioners are too low (ii) because of the complexity of the matter it requires thorough investigation (iii) it is not a matter of adjudication before the Commission. 4. According to the learned Senior counsel, these grounds cited by the second respondent cannot be the grounds for rejecting the application of the petitioners. 5. Secondly, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contended Section 32 Clause 6 and 7 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 contemplate wider power for the Settlement Commission to call for an investigation and without conducting the investigation as contemplated under the said provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his regard is not agreeing with the applicant's contention in his application and that the investigation conducted by them has been very complex. The contentions of the applicant in his application against the Show Cause Notice are not only very lengthy but also complicated and on legal, procedural, technical and evidentiary points. The Bench finds that if this case is admitted for settlement, it will be very difficult to arrive at the correct amount of duty without ordering a very detailed investigation again which may not be possible at this stage. Going into the detailed and contentious submissions made by both sides and to come to a conclusion giving detailed reasons of Bench's findings on duty involved in several annexures to the Show Cause Notice would be a job which may amount to a detailed adjudication of the case by the Commission. The Bench is of the view that the job of this Commission is to settle the duty amount so that the immunities prayed for by the applicant are considered, rather than adjudicate the case of two litigating parties. The Bench feels that this Commission is not to undo a Show Cause Notice against a small amount of additional admitted duty as compared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner (Investigation) to make or cause to be made such further enquiry or investigation and furnish a report on the matters covered by the application and any other matter relating to the case." "(7) After examination of the records and the report of the Commissioner of Central Excise received under sub-section (1), and the report, if any, of the Commissioner (Investigation) of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (6), and after giving an opportunity to the applicant and to the Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction to be heard, either in person or through a representative duly authorised in this behalf, and after examining such further evidence as may be placed before it or obtained by it, the Settlement Commission may, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, pass such order as it thinks fit on the matters covered by the application and any other matter relating to the case not covered by the application, but referred to in the report of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Commissioner (Investigation) under sub-section (1) or sub-section (6)." 11. The above provision makes it very clear that if the Settlement Commission is of the opinion that an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the decisions of the second respondent in certain other matter which came before it for adjudication. Hence I am not traversing each one of the orders enclosed along with the typed set and relied on by the learned Senior counsel. However it would be suffice to incorporate only the judgments of the Apex Court, which has been relied on by the Settlement Commission when it has been asked to adjudicate a matter. In (1994) 2 SCC 374, (Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. Express Newspapers Limited), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as follows: "It is equally evident that once an application made under Sec.245-C is admitted for consideration (after giving notice to and considering the report of the Commissioner of Income Tax as provided by Sec.245-D) the Commission shall have to withdraw the case relating to that assessment year (or years, as the case may be) from the assessing/appellate/revising authority and with the case, as a whole, by itself. In other words, the proceedings before the Commission are not confined to the income disclosed before it alone. Once his application is allowed to be proceeded with by the Commission, the proceedings pending before any authority under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
