2014 (9) TMI 712 - HC - Central Excise

Concealment of facts - Customs is not correct. - Substantial portion of the impugned order demonstrated the aspects on which the cooperation was not forthcoming. Further it is not as if that the impugned order has taken away any accrued rights of the petitioner. Even at this stage it can pursue the remedies that are provided for under law. The net result is that it cannot avail the benefits of immunity from prosecution - Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Customs & Central Excise Settlement Commission regarding excise duty evasion based on non-cooperation of the petitioner.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to Settlement Commission's Order
The petitioner, a manufacturer under the Central Excise Act, filed a writ petition challenging the order passed by the Customs & Central Excise Settlement Commission. The Commission found that the petitioner did not make full and truthful disclosure, leading to the case being referred back to the Central Excise Officer for adjudication as if no settlement application was filed.

Issue 2: Non-Cooperation Allegation
The petitioner contended that they cooperated throughout the proceedings and disagreed with the Commission's conclusion of non-cooperation. The respondent argued that settlement under Section 32E of the Act depends on the honesty and truthfulness of the assessee, emphasizing the need for genuine and truthful disclosure for settlement.

Issue 3: Settlement Commission's Authority
The Settlement Commissions under various Acts have the power to settle disputes through inquisitorial adjudication based on the nature of disclosure by the assessee. If concealment is found, the Commission can decline to proceed further, allowing the assessee to pursue other legal remedies.

Issue 4: Definition of Cooperation
The concept of cooperation in settlement proceedings differs from its ordinary meaning. In this context, cooperation implies the full and true disclosure of facts by the assessee. Non-cooperation refers to the opposite, i.e., withholding relevant information.

Issue 5: Relief and Immunity
Relief granted by the Settlement Commission, such as immunity from prosecution, is contingent upon the assessee's truthfulness. The Commission can drop proceedings if any information affecting assessment is withheld. In this case, the Commission identified multiple aspects where information was withheld, leading to the denial of immunity.

Issue 6: Dismissal of Writ Petition
The Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the Commission correctly identified lack of cooperation by the petitioner, listing specific aspects of non-disclosure. The petitioner retains the right to pursue other legal remedies but cannot benefit from immunity. The judgment highlights the importance of full and truthful disclosure in settlement proceedings, emphasizing the Commission's adherence to legal principles and precedents.