2018 (9) TMI 310 - HC - Central Excise

Rejection of Settlement application - rejection on the ground as the same was filed after the passing of the adjudication order - Held that - The date of service of the order in the context of Section 32E of the Act is immaterial. This as an adjudication could be said to be complete when the adjudication order is issued so as to be outside the control of the adjudicator - As there is prima facie a difference of language in the Act and in the Income Tax Act, 1961 the applicability of the decision rendered under the Income Tax Act, 1961 to this Act in the case of in the Yashovardhan Birla Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central 2016 (9) TMI 296 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT would require consideration at final hearing. Hearing expedited. Liberty to apply.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Settlement Commission rejecting settlement application filed after passing of adjudication order.

Analysis:
The judgment before the Bombay High Court involved a challenge to an order passed by the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Settlement Commission rejecting a settlement application filed after the passing of an adjudication order. The petitioner's counsel relied on a decision under the Income Tax Act to argue that the assessment proceedings would cease to be pending only upon receipt of the assessment order by the party. The petitioner contended that since the settlement application was filed before receiving the adjudication order, it should not be rejected. On the other hand, the Revenue's counsel pointed out Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, which allows an assessee to make an application before adjudication. The Revenue argued that the adjudication was complete upon issuance of the order, regardless of the date of service. The court noted a difference in language between the two acts and decided that the applicability of the decision under the Income Tax Act to the Central Excise Act required further consideration at the final hearing.

The court observed that the key issue at hand was the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act in comparison to the Income Tax Act. The court acknowledged the prima facie difference in language between the two acts and recognized the need for a detailed examination of the applicability of the decision rendered under the Income Tax Act to the Central Excise Act during the final hearing. The court did not grant any interim relief at this stage, and the respondent waived service. The court expedited the hearing and granted liberty to apply for any further necessary actions or submissions in the matter.