2017 (10) TMI 747 - HC - Central Excise

Validity of Application made to Settlement commission - return not filed - Held that - - the petitioner does not have a vested right to compel the first respondent Settlement Commission, to take on file the case for settlement without fulfilling the conditions prescribed under Section 32 E of the act. Record of the proceedings show that no return was filed and in such circumstances, an application for settlement cannot be made in view of the statutory embargo, as contained in Section 32 E (1)(a) of the Act - the impugned order is perfectly valid and calls for no interference - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues: Impugned order by Customs Central Excise Settlement Commission, Non-filing of returns affecting settlement application

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the order by the Customs Central Excise Settlement Commission, which demanded excise duty on goods cleared without payment from October 1999 to March 2004. The show-cause notice also mentioned appropriation of the amount paid, interest charges, and penalties under various sections of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. The petitioner opted to file for settlement before the Commission instead of responding to the show-cause notice. However, the Commission found that the petitioner failed to submit returns showing production, clearance, and duty payments as required by Section 32E(1) of the Act. Consequently, the Commission held that the petitioner did not meet the conditions for settlement due to the non-filing of returns.

3. The respondent argued that the value of clearance provided by the petitioner did not fulfill the requirements of filing returns under the Central Excise Rules. It was contended that the petitioner did not file returns before seeking settlement with the Commission.

4. The Court noted that the petitioner had no absolute right to compel the Commission to consider their case for settlement without meeting the conditions specified in Section 32E of the Act. Since the petitioner did not file any returns, the application for settlement was not permissible under the statutory provisions, specifically Section 32E(1)(a) of the Act.

5. Consequently, the Court upheld the impugned order, ruling it as valid and not warranting any interference. The writ petition was dismissed, granting the petitioner 30 days to submit objections to the show-cause notice. After this period, the matter would be taken up for adjudication. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.