2008 (7) TMI 381 - HC - Central Excise

Power of settlement commission power to rectify mistake error apparent on record held that - Commission is justified in saying that once certain amounts are settled as being liable to tax after allowing or disallowing certain benefits, the proceedings attained finality and cannot be re-opened so as to take a different view of the matter on the basis of alleged error apparent on record. Same is the position in relation to the factum of not granting immunity from prosecution - the petition does not merit acceptance and is, accordingly, rejected

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to order of Settlement Commission regarding settlement application.
2. Alleged errors in final order related to deemed credit and immunity from prosecution.
3. Commission's power to review its own order.
4. Interpretation of Tribunal's decision on deemed credit.
5. Determination of launching of prosecution.
6. Commission's findings on errors apparent on record and rectification.

Analysis:
1. The petition challenged the Settlement Commission's order dated 20th July, 2004, rejecting a Miscellaneous Application filed by the petitioners regarding settlement of disputes. The application highlighted two alleged errors in the final order: non-extension of deemed credit based on a Tribunal decision and failure to grant immunity from prosecution under the assumption of an already launched prosecution.

2. The petitioners contended that the Commission erred in holding it lacked the power to review its final order. Regarding deemed credit, it was argued that the Commission misunderstood the Tribunal's decision, which did not apply as the exemption limit was not crossed by the petitioners. Concerning prosecution, it was asserted that no formal prosecution had been initiated despite the arrest of the partners.

3. The Commission, in response to the plea on deemed credit, stated that the issue was thoroughly considered and consciously rejected in the final order, hence no error was apparent for review. Similarly, on the matter of prosecution, the Commission verified the status with the Revenue and received confirmation of prosecution sanction and filing of a criminal complaint.

4. The Commission's observations emphasized that even if errors were perceived by the petitioners, it did not constitute mistakes apparent on record warranting rectification. Merely misinterpreting a Tribunal order or misjudging the prosecution status did not qualify as grounds for review or rectification according to the Commission.

5. The Commission justified its stance by asserting that once tax liabilities were settled, proceedings reached finality and could not be revisited based on alleged errors. This principle applied to both the deemed credit issue and the immunity from prosecution matter, as decisions made during settlement proceedings were deemed conclusive.

6. Ultimately, the petition was rejected as the Commission found no merit in the challenges raised by the petitioners. The judgment concluded by discharging the notice without any order on costs, affirming the Commission's decision on the settlement application and the alleged errors in the final order.