2008 (4) TMI 174 - HC - Central Excise

Settlement commissioner rejected the application of petitioner giving the finding that 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 - Settlement Commission has not gone into the details of issues raised by the petitioners order of settlement commission is set aside and matter is remitted to it for full adjudication of the matter

Issues Involved:
1. Grounds for rejection of the application by the second respondent.
2. Powers of the Settlement Commission under Section 32(6) and (7) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Evaluation of the second respondent's adherence to legal principles and procedural fairness.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Grounds for Rejection of the Application by the Second Respondent:
The second respondent rejected the petitioners' applications on three primary grounds:
(i) The amount admitted by the petitioners was too low.
(ii) The complexity of the matter required thorough investigation.
(iii) The matter was not suitable for adjudication before the Commission.

The petitioners contended that these grounds were not valid reasons for rejecting their applications. They argued that the Settlement Commission has the authority to call for an investigation if necessary, as per Section 32(6) and (7) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioners also claimed that the second respondent did not exercise this power and instead rejected the applications without proper investigation.

2. Powers of the Settlement Commission under Section 32(6) and (7) of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
Section 32(6) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, states that if the Settlement Commission deems further enquiry or investigation necessary, it may direct the Commissioner (Investigation) to conduct such an investigation and furnish a report. Section 32(7) allows the Settlement Commission to pass orders after examining the records, the report of the Commissioner of Central Excise, and any further evidence.

The judgment emphasized that the second respondent failed to utilize its power to call for a detailed investigation. The court noted that the second respondent's decision to reject the applications based on the complexity of the matter and the low amount admitted by the petitioners was not justified. The court highlighted that the Settlement Commission is empowered to decide the matter fairly and should not avoid addressing the issues raised by the petitioners.

3. Evaluation of the Second Respondent's Adherence to Legal Principles and Procedural Fairness:
The court criticized the second respondent for not providing a thorough examination of the issues raised by the petitioners. The judgment pointed out that the second respondent's reasoning that the contentions of the petitioners were lengthy and complicated was not a valid ground for rejection. The court asserted that the Settlement Commission should have discussed the contentions in detail rather than dismissing them as complicated.

The judgment also referenced previous decisions by the Apex Court, which emphasized that the Settlement Commission is a judicial tribunal and must ensure justice transcends procedural and technical barriers. The court concluded that the second respondent did not adhere to these principles and failed to provide a fair adjudication of the matter.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the order of the second respondent dated 25-1-2008 and remanded the matter back to the second respondent for a full adjudication of the issues raised by the petitioners. The writ petitions were allowed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed without costs.

← Previous Next →