9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 1265 - HC - Central ExcisePrinciples of Natural Justice - application to Settlement Commission - Section 32F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - it appears that the petitioners did not avail the opportunity before the Commission and therefore, the Commission opined that the petitioner is adopting dilatory tactics and rejected the petition - Considering the fact that the writ petition is pending from the year 2006 onwards and there is an order of interim stay, this Court is inclined to remand the matter back to Settlement Commission for fresh consideration - petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues: Challenge to order of Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission under Section 32F of Central Excise Act, 1944.
The judgment delivered by T.S. Sivagnanam, J. of the Madras High Court pertained to a challenge against the order of the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission dated 26-5-2006, where the Commission rejected the petitioners' application under Section 32F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioners had received a show cause notice demanding duty of &8377; 18,99,166, with a mention that the cum-duty benefit would reduce the liability to &8377; 16,69,953. The petitioners failed to avail the opportunity before the Commission, leading to the Commission's view that they were employing dilatory tactics, resulting in the rejection of the petition. The counsel for the petitioners argued that they had already paid &8377; 10,00,000 out of the duty liability and were willing to clear the remaining liability as demanded by the Revenue before the Commission. Considering the writ petition's prolonged pendency since 2006 and the existence of an interim stay order, the Court decided to remand the matter back to the Settlement Commission for fresh consideration based on the petitioners' willingness to pay the remaining duty liability as per the department's demand. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Commission to reassess the petitioner's conduct and proceed in accordance with the law. In conclusion, the High Court set aside the impugned order, allowed the writ petition, and did not award any costs. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed as a result of the judgment.
|
