2016 (10) TMI 342 - HC - Central Excise

Validity of order passed by Settlement Commission u/s 32F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - allowance of cenvat credit before the closure of the factory - clandestine removal of goods - Held that - A writ court is not a First Appellate Court where the facts are to be re-apprised to find out whether another view can be taken on the facts established. The Settlement Commission has considered the relevant facts and has arrived at a finding as recorded in the impugned order. Such finding has not been demonstrated to be perverse. The jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission to pass the impugned order has also not been questioned - no interference required with the order of Settlement Commission - petition dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Settlement Commission's order under Section 32F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order by the Settlement Commission under Section 32F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, alleging errors in the Commission's assessment. The petitioner claimed that the respondent had obtained Cenvat credit before factory closure and engaged in clandestine removal of goods. The respondent, a Sick Industrial Undertaking under the Sick Industrial Undertaking [Special Provisions] Act, 1985, had applied for settlement under Section 32F after disclosing all relevant materials. The Settlement Commission's detailed order considered the contentions, granting amnesty against prosecution and denying penalty or interest to the department.

The key contention was the Settlement Commission's alleged failure to appreciate facts, which the petitioner argued rendered the order flawed. However, the Court emphasized that it is not a First Appellate Court tasked with reassessing facts. The Commission had thoroughly examined the facts, arriving at a non-perverse finding in the impugned order. Moreover, the Commission's jurisdiction to issue the order was not challenged. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, dismissing the writ petition without costs.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the Settlement Commission's order under Section 32F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, highlighting the Commission's detailed consideration of facts and the petitioner's failure to demonstrate any perversity in the findings. The Court's decision rested on the principle that it is not within its purview to reevaluate facts already considered by the Commission, affirming the Commission's authority in issuing the order.