2009 (3) TMI 72 - HC - Central Excise

Petitioner contend that Settlement Commission has not assigned any reason while imposing penalty and directing levy of interest - petitioner is aggrieved only by one part of the order while being satisfied with the other part of the order in relation to the fixation of liability to pay duty and the assessee being granted immunity from prosecution - it is not permissible to disect the order and hold that the part with which the petitioner aggrieved is bad in law- petition is rejected

Issues involved:
1. Imposition of penalty by the Settlement Commission.
2. Levy of interest by the Settlement Commission.
3. Non-assignment of reasons by the Settlement Commission.
4. Financial constraints of the petitioner.
5. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Issue-wise detailed analysis:

1. Imposition of penalty by the Settlement Commission:
The petitioner challenged the Settlement Commission's order imposing a penalty of Rs. 20,00,000. The petitioner argued that the Commission did not provide any reasons for arriving at this penalty amount. The High Court noted that the Settlement Commission was aware of the financial constraints faced by the petitioner, as indicated in the order. The Commission had granted immunity from penalty beyond Rs. 20,00,000 and provided total immunity to co-applicants. The High Court held that the petitioner could not selectively challenge parts of the order while accepting others. The Court found no legal infirmity in the imposition of the penalty.

2. Levy of interest by the Settlement Commission:
The petitioner contested the Commission's directive to charge interest at 10% per annum on the duty payable on all clandestinely removed goods from the date of removal until the date of payment. The High Court observed that the Commission had granted immunity from interest beyond 10%. The Court reiterated that the petitioner could not challenge only parts of the order. The High Court concluded that the Settlement Commission's decision on interest did not warrant interference.

3. Non-assignment of reasons by the Settlement Commission:
The petitioner argued that the Settlement Commission's order lacked reasons for the penalty and interest amounts, citing various judgments to support the necessity of reasoned orders. The High Court referred to the entire order and found that the Commission had considered the financial constraints and other relevant factors. The Court emphasized that orders should be read as a whole, and the petitioner could not selectively challenge parts of it. The High Court held that the Commission's order was not made without application of mind and did not require detailed reasons in all circumstances.

4. Financial constraints of the petitioner:
The petitioner contended that the Settlement Commission failed to consider its financial position adequately. The High Court noted that the Commission had acknowledged the financial constraints and condoned the delay in duty payment due to these constraints. The Court found that the Commission had considered the financial position and granted appropriate relief, thus the petitioner's grievance was unfounded.

5. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution:
The respondent argued that the High Court should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 since there was no jurisdictional error in the Settlement Commission's order. The High Court referred to the Apex Court's judgment in Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I. Tripathi, which limited the scope of judicial review under Article 226 to examining whether the Settlement Commission acted in accordance with the Act's provisions. The High Court held that it could only interfere if the Commission's order was contrary to the Act's provisions and prejudiced the petitioner. The Court found no such contravention and dismissed the petition.

Conclusion:
The High Court rejected the petition, holding that the Settlement Commission's order did not suffer from any legal infirmity. The Court emphasized that the petitioner could not selectively challenge parts of the order and found that the Commission had considered the petitioner's financial constraints. The High Court reiterated the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 and concluded that the Commission's order was not contrary to the Act's provisions. The petition was accordingly dismissed, and the notice was discharged without any order as to costs.

← Previous Next →