2016 (10) TMI 120 - HC - Central Excise

Seeking deletion of adverse remark from order dated 29th October, 2014 - It is a clear case of suppression and misdeclaration of facts with intent to evade duty - Central excise duty, interest component and equal penalty has been paid by the petitioner under the impugned order - petitioner had not disclosed the value of dies/fixtures in the declared value of parts/components - Held that - we do not think that there was any need to record a finding that there is a suppression and mis-declaration of facts with intent to evade duty. The Settlement Commission, in this case, took the application for settlement on record and adjudicated it in accordance with law. The very purpose was to provide an opportunity to parties like the petitioner to come clean by readily accepting the calculations and computation. Precisely, that has been done and there is no challenge to the order of the Settlement Commission on merits. The findings that the disclosures are honest and yet there is suppression and mis-declaration of facts cannot be reconciled. We, therefore, delete that part of the order. The petitioner will not derive any benefit in the form of refund of duty, interest and penalty already paid under the order of the Settlement Commission. - Decided in favour of petitioner

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to adverse remark in order dated 29th October, 2014 and rejection of miscellaneous application dated 6th April, 2015.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged part of the order dated 29th October, 2014, which contained an adverse remark and a letter dated 6th April, 2015, rejecting a miscellaneous application. The petitioner's counsel argued that a specific remark in para 7.4 of the order should be expunged or deleted if it cannot be reconciled with subsequent findings. The Central Excise Duty, interest, and penalty as per the order had been paid by the petitioner, and it was contended that the adverse remark should be deleted considering the petitioner's bonafide conduct.

The respondent, on the other hand, justified the remark by stating that the petitioner had failed to disclose the value of dies/fixtures in the declared value of parts/components, leading to a short payment of Central Excise Duty. It was argued that the remark was inserted based on these circumstances and did not cause any prejudice, hence should not be deleted. The Settlement Commission admitted the petitioner's application for settlement, where it was revealed that the petitioner had not included the amortized value of dies/fixtures supplied by another company in the final value of manufactured parts/components.

The Commission found that the petitioner, a subsidiary of a larger company, had not included the amortized value of dies/fixtures in the value of goods cleared for duty payment. Despite the lack of malafides, the petitioner came forward to settle the claim after realizing the error. The Settlement Commission considered all submissions, reports, and evidence before rendering its findings. The Commission held that while the duty and interest had been paid, there was a failure to include the value of dies/fixtures in the final value of parts/components, which was known to the petitioner based on similar practices in other units.

The High Court concluded that there was no need to record a finding of suppression and misdeclaration of facts with intent to evade duty in this case. The Settlement Commission had taken the application for settlement on record and adjudicated it appropriately. The purpose of the settlement was to allow parties to rectify errors and come clean, which the petitioner had done by accepting calculations and computations. Therefore, the Court deleted the part of the order containing the adverse remark, allowing the writ petition to that extent. The petitioner was not entitled to any refund of duty, interest, or penalty already paid under the Settlement Commission's order.