2019 (4) TMI 239 - HC - Central Excise

Rejection of Settlement Commission application - non-fulfillment of condition of Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - petitioner has contended that the Superintendent has travelled beyond the order which was unconditional and the Commission has committed serious error in relying on the letter issued by the subordinate officer - Held that - Even if condition u/s Section 32 is mandatory, the appropriate remedy for the Registrar or the Superintendent is to go before the judicial member of the Commission. The order is required to be modified, however, the Commission subject to provisions of Section 32 admitted the matter and written a letter and taking support of subordinate officer of the Commission passed the order which is not proper. The Commission will reconsider the matter in view of law laid down by the Commission itself in accordance with law - petition allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of applications by the Settlement Commission.
2. Fulfillment of conditions under Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Classification dispute between "supply of tangible goods service" and "Goods Transport Agency service".
4. Jurisdiction and procedural propriety of the Settlement Commission's decision.
5. Judicial review and adherence to precedents.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of applications by the Settlement Commission:
The petitioners challenged the Settlement Commission's decision to reject their applications, asserting that the Commission erred by relying on a letter from the Superintendent, which imposed conditions not present in the original admission order. The petitioners argued that the Superintendent's letter exceeded the scope of the unconditional admission order dated 17-1-2017.

2. Fulfillment of conditions under Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The core issue revolved around whether the petitioners met the statutory conditions under Section 32E. The Settlement Commission found that the petitioners admitted a duty liability of ?3 lakhs each for services under Section 66E of the Finance Act, 1994. However, this admission was unrelated to the Show Cause Notices (SCNs) in question, thus failing to meet the criteria of a "case" as defined in Clause (c) of Section 32 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commission concluded that the petitioners' admitted liability did not pertain to the SCNs, rendering them ineligible for settlement.

3. Classification dispute between "supply of tangible goods service" and "Goods Transport Agency service":
The petitioners contended that the services provided fell under "Goods Transport Agency" (GTA) service, with the service tax already discharged by the service recipients (Shree Cement Ltd.) under the reverse charge mechanism. The SCNs, however, classified the services as "supply of tangible goods service," demanding additional service tax and penalties. The Settlement Commission noted that disputes involving service classification are barred under the fourth proviso to Section 32E(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

4. Jurisdiction and procedural propriety of the Settlement Commission's decision:
The petitioners argued that the Settlement Commission failed to consider precedents and judgments that supported their case. They cited decisions like "In RE: Triruchengode Lorry Urimaiyalargal Sangam" and "In RE: Crest Communication Ltd." to assert that classification disputes should not bar settlement applications. They also highlighted that the Commission's reliance on the Superintendent's letter was procedurally improper, as the letter imposed conditions not present in the original admission order.

5. Judicial review and adherence to precedents:
The petitioners relied on judicial precedents to argue that the Settlement Commission should have considered their case on merits. They cited judgments like "Stallion Rubber Ltd. v. CCE" and "M/s. Padmavati Tubes v. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax" to emphasize the importance of judicial discipline and adherence to precedents. They argued that the Commission's decision violated these principles by ignoring relevant judgments and failing to provide a detailed order on the judicial side.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the Settlement Commission's decision was flawed due to procedural impropriety and failure to consider relevant precedents. The Court set aside the Commission's order and remitted the matter for reconsideration, emphasizing that the Commission should adhere to the law and precedents in its decision-making process. The petitions were allowed, with the Commission directed to reconsider the matter in accordance with the law.

← Previous Next →