2014 (11) TMI 1100 - HC - Central Excise

Validity of order passed by the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission - additional higher duty liability admitted by the petitioner - Held that - The petitioner having appeared and agreed initially to additional duty liability of 10, 79, 898/- and the commission having passed an order directing them to pay the amount and the same having been complied with on 13-6-2005 and subsequently the petitioner having been appeared twice before the Commission and having not appeared for only one occasion ought not to have been penalized by passing the impugned order. Three adjournments were granted by the Commission for the reasons not attributable to the writ petitioner. One adjournment was granted on the ground that the departmental representative did not appear and two adjournments were granted for administrative reasons. Therefore this Court is of the view that the commission should have granted one more opportunity to the petitioner in the light of the fact that additional duty liability had been remitted and the petitioner also admitted the future additional duty liability. Writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Commission for fresh consideration.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission under Section 32E of Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Textile Mill, filed an application for settlement of proceedings initiated against them by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise. Initially, a duty demand of &8377; 34,00,950/- was reduced to &8377; 30,97,851/-. The petitioner accepted to remit additional duty of &8377; 10,79,898/- and filed an application before the Settlement Commission. The Commission directed the petitioner to deposit the admitted amount, which was paid. Subsequently, the petitioner admitted a higher duty liability of &8377; 22,48,025.25. The Commission rejected the application later due to lack of representation by the petitioner during a hearing.

The Court observed that the petitioner had cooperated by initially agreeing to additional duty liability, making the payment, and appearing before the Commission multiple times. The Commission had granted adjournments for various reasons not attributable to the petitioner, such as the absence of departmental representatives and administrative reasons. The Court held that the Commission should have given one more opportunity to the petitioner considering the payments made and the admission of future additional duty liability.

Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter back to the Commission for fresh consideration. The Commission was directed to consider the previous payment and the admitted higher duty liability, granting sufficient time to the petitioner for payment to be entitled to immunity from penalty and prosecution. No costs were awarded, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.