2009 (3) TMI 75 - HC - Central Excise

Challenge against order of Settlement Commission - applicant has created confusion and is also seeking to create confusion in the proceedings before the Settlement Commission by obfuscating the issues - Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case not only there is no error in first order made by the Settlement Commission, but the second order also does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to call for any interference in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to orders dated 21/7/2008 and 8/1/2008 by Customs & Central Excise Settlement Commission, Mumbai. Interpretation of Section 32F of the Act regarding time limits for passing orders on settlement applications. Validity of Settlement Commission's direction to treat a subsequent application as deemed to have been filed on an earlier date. Compliance with statutory timelines for settlement proceedings.

Analysis:
The petition challenged orders dated 21/7/2008 and 8/1/2008 by the Settlement Commission regarding duty liabilities admitted by the petitioner company. The Settlement Commission accepted the initial application dated 27/5/2007 for a show cause notice dated 18/5/2005. However, a subsequent application in the form of a letter dated 30/5/2007, admitting additional duty liability, was initially deemed to have been filed on 30/5/2007 by the Settlement Commission. The petitioner later filed a formal application on 5/5/2008, which was rejected by the Commission citing non-compliance with statutory timelines under Section 32F of the Act.

The petitioner contended that the Settlement Commission erred in deeming the subsequent application as filed on 30/5/2007, as this would exceed the statutory deadline of 29/2/2008 for passing orders. The petitioner argued that the second application filed on 5/5/2008 was within the statutory timeline, but the Commission rejected it. The respondent authorities defended the Commission's actions, stating that the hearing on the second application occurred within the required timeframe.

The interpretation of Section 32F of the Act was crucial in determining the validity of the Settlement Commission's orders. The provision stipulates specific time limits for passing orders on settlement applications, based on the application filing date. The Commission's decision to treat the subsequent application as deemed to have been filed on an earlier date was challenged by the petitioner. However, the Court found that if the petitioner had submitted a formal application on 30/5/2007 instead of a letter, the statutory deadline would have been met.

The Court upheld the Settlement Commission's orders, emphasizing that the petitioner had accepted the observations in the initial order dated 8/1/2008, including the direction to substitute the letter with a formal application. The Commission's decision to reject the second application on 5/5/2008 was deemed valid, as it fell outside the statutory timelines specified in Section 32F of the Act. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded, with the Court finding no legal infirmity in the Commission's orders.