2018 (2) TMI 1317 - HC - Central Excise

Application for Settlement - Settlement Commission, while rejecting the application, by the impugned order, did not allow the application to be proceeded with, in terms of Section 32 F (1) of the Act, as the petitioner did not satisfy the condition in Clause (a) of Section 32 E (1) (a) - Held that - the petitioner stated that, there was no processing of dyeing blended yarn in the last year, so, they did not file 173 B during that period, and in future, they will commence processing of blended yearn and they will file 173 B return. The petitioner specifically mentioned that they are doing job work, i.e., 100% polyester yarn to M/s Kousalya Thread Mills, Tiruppur, under Rule 57 F (4) transactions and apart from that, they are doing job work of Bleaching and Dyeing for the knitted fabrics and not doing the same process for woven fabrics. Appropriate declaration under Rule 173 (B) was also filed, mentioning the relevant details and furnishing the necessary declaration. The application filed before the Settlement Commission ought not to have been rejected at the threshold - matter is remanded to the first respondent/ Customs & Central Excise Settlement Commission for fresh consideration, with the direction to entertain the application and take a decision on merits - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission rejecting settlement application.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of their settlement application by the Settlement Commission, which was based on the petitioner's failure to satisfy the conditions under Section 32 E (1) (a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner had received a show cause notice demanding Central Excise duty and penalties, which they attributed to market competition and buyer reluctance to bear duty costs. The Settlement Commission rejected the application without considering the petitioner's explanation adequately, despite relevant correspondence with the Central Excise Department. The Court observed that the Commission should have examined the factual aspects and correspondence before rejecting the application at the threshold.

The correspondence between the petitioner and the Central Excise Department revealed details about the petitioner's activities, including dyeing processes and job works undertaken. The petitioner's responses to the Department's instructions regarding filing returns and declarations were also considered. The Court emphasized the relevance of this correspondence in determining the nature of the petitioner's activities and the necessity for filing returns under Section 32 (F) (1) (A) of the Act. The Court concluded that the Commission should have entertained the application and examined the matter on its merits, especially since the petitioner acknowledged their duty liability.

In the final decision, the Court allowed the Writ Petition, set aside the impugned order rejecting the settlement application, and remanded the matter to the Settlement Commission for fresh consideration. The Commission was directed to entertain the application, examine the case on its merits, and make a decision in accordance with the law. No costs were awarded in this judgment.