2015 (10) TMI 373 - HC - Central Excise

Challenge to the order of Settlement Commission - power of the commission to remand the case back - scope of Section 32-F - Held that - In the case of Vinay Wire and Poly Product P.Ltd. Vs. Dir. General of Central Excise 2014 (8) TMI 253 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Division Bench of this Court considered the provisions of Section 32-F and 32-L of the Act and held that a plain reading of provisions of sub-sections (5) and (8) of Section 32-F makes it clear that the Settlement Commission has to pass such order as it thinks fit and it has the power not only to provide the terms of the settlement but also to reject the application, in which eventuality, reasons have to be recorded. The power conferred on the Settlement Commission under Section 32-L to send the case back to the Central Excise Officer is in addition to the aforesaid powers of the Settlement Commission. Such a power given to the Settlement Commission under Section 32-L can be exercised, if it finds that any person who has made an application for settlement under Section 32-E, has not co-operated with the Settlement Commission in the proceedings before it. This power given to the Settlement Commission under Section 32-L does not and cannot take away the powers conferred on the Settlement Commission under sub-section (5) and (8) of Section 32-F. The specific instances of clandestine removal of goods, discrepancies of value recorded in the invoices and those recorded in the private record against the same invoice numbers and use of parallel invoices as alleged in the show cause notice, were not explained. The Settlement Commission also found that the stand taken by the applicant and the Department are at huge variance inasmuch as the petitioners merely accepted 10% of the demand and has contested the evidence collected by the Revenue without any convincing explanation. - Order of Settlement Commission sustained - decided against the assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Settlement Commission's order.
2. Compliance with Section 32-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Examination of the Settlement Commission's findings and the petitioners' acceptance of allegations.
4. Legal precedents and their applicability to the case.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Settlement Commission's Order:
The petitioners sought to quash the impugned order passed by the Settlement Commission and requested a fresh hearing of their application. The court examined whether the Settlement Commission's decision to remand the matter was legally sound. The petitioners argued that the Settlement Commission had committed a manifest error of law by remanding the matter, which contradicted the principles laid down by various High Courts.

2. Compliance with Section 32-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The court analyzed the provisions of Section 32-F, which outlines the procedure for settlement applications. The Settlement Commission found contradictions in the petitioners' acceptance of certain documents as evidence of clandestine clearances while denying others. The Commission concluded that the petitioners' disclosures were neither truthful nor complete, leading to the rejection of the settlement application. The court affirmed that the Settlement Commission's order was within the legal framework of Section 32-F.

3. Examination of the Settlement Commission's Findings and the Petitioners' Acceptance of Allegations:
The Settlement Commission noted that the petitioners accepted the allegations in the show cause notice only for documents marked 'R' but denied the rest. It found this selective acceptance to be contradictory and an afterthought. The Commission also observed that the petitioners failed to explain discrepancies in stock, unaccounted cheques, and the use of parallel invoices. The court upheld the Commission's findings, stating that the petitioners had not made a full and true disclosure, which is essential for settlement.

4. Legal Precedents and Their Applicability to the Case:
The petitioners relied on judgments from the Delhi, Bombay, and Gujarat High Courts to support their case. However, the court distinguished these cases based on their facts. For instance, in the case of Vinay Wire and Poly Product P. Ltd., the court had upheld the Settlement Commission's discretion to remand cases for adjudication when there was no true and correct disclosure. The court found that the impugned order was not contrary to any legal provisions and that the Settlement Commission had provided sufficient reasons for its decision.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the Settlement Commission's order. It held that the Commission had acted within its legal powers and that the petitioners had not cooperated fully in the settlement process. The court emphasized that the Settlement Commission is not an adjudicating authority but an arbitration forum where applicants must disclose all facts truthfully. The petitioners' selective acceptance of allegations and lack of convincing explanations justified the Commission's decision to remand the matter for adjudication.

← Previous Next →