2008 (4) TMI 322 - HC - Central Excise

Settlement Commission - Held that - The second respondent Settlement Commission has to decide the matter in issue raised by the petitioners after hearing the first respondent. But unfortunately the second respondent Settlement Commission has not gone into the details of issues raised by the petitions but has thrown out the applications preferred by the petitioners on certain grounds which could not be accepted. However since the second respondent has not given any findings which they are expected to do it inclined to set aside the order and to remit the matter before second respondent. In fine the order of the second respondent dated 25-1-2008 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the second respondent for full adjudication of the matter on the issues raised by the petitioners. Accordingly these writ petitions are allowed. Consequently connected M.Ps. are also closed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of the petitioners' applications by the second respondent.
2. Grounds cited by the second respondent for rejection.
3. Powers of the Settlement Commission under Section 32(6) and (7) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
4. Adequacy of the investigation and findings by the second respondent.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of the Petitioners' Applications by the Second Respondent:
The petitioners challenged the second respondent's order dated 25-1-2008, which rejected their applications for settlement. The petitioners sought a directive for the second respondent to admit their application dated 2-4-2007. The applications were filed in response to a show cause notice issued by the first respondent, which proposed a duty demand along with interest and penalties under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Grounds Cited by the Second Respondent for Rejection:
The second respondent rejected the petitioners' applications on three primary grounds:
- The amount admitted by the petitioners was too low.
- The complexity of the matter required thorough investigation.
- The case was not suitable for adjudication before the Settlement Commission.

The petitioners argued that these grounds were insufficient for rejecting their applications. They contended that the Settlement Commission had broader powers to call for investigations under Section 32(6) and (7) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and that the second respondent failed to utilize these powers before rejecting their claim.

3. Powers of the Settlement Commission under Section 32(6) and (7) of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
Section 32(6) and (7) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, provides the Settlement Commission with the authority to call for relevant records and, if necessary, direct further enquiry or investigation. The Settlement Commission can then pass an order based on the examination of these records and reports. The petitioners argued that the second respondent should have exercised these powers to conduct a thorough investigation before arriving at a decision.

4. Adequacy of the Investigation and Findings by the Second Respondent:
The court noted that the second respondent's order stated that it would be difficult to determine the correct amount of duty without a detailed investigation. However, the second respondent did not utilize its power to order such an investigation. The court found this approach erroneous, as the second respondent should have called for a detailed investigation if it deemed it necessary.

The court also found fault with the second respondent's rejection of the applications on the grounds that the petitioners' contentions were lengthy and complicated. The court held that the length and complexity of the petitioners' contentions could not be valid grounds for rejection without proper discussion and consideration.

Furthermore, the court disagreed with the second respondent's reasoning that the amount admitted by the petitioners was too low. The court emphasized that the Settlement Commission is empowered to decide on the matter fairly and should not dismiss applications based on the admitted amount alone.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the second respondent's order dated 25-1-2008 and remanded the matter back to the second respondent for full adjudication of the issues raised by the petitioners. The court directed the second respondent to utilize its powers under the Central Excise Act, 1944, to conduct a thorough investigation if necessary and to provide detailed findings on the issues. The writ petitions were allowed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed without costs.