9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (12) TMI 230 - HC - Central ExciseSettlement Commission - power of Commission - Held that - The petitioner had approached this Court on the ground that no such concession was made by the learned Senior Counsel whereupon this Court had directed the petitioner to file an affidavit of the Senior Counsel which was not filed therefore the Court did not interfere with it leaving it open to the petitioner to file a review application before the Settlement Commission. The Commission insisted upon filing of the affidavit by the learned Senior Counsel which was not done therefore the Commission was justified in rejecting the review application. Even otherwise we are of the considered opinion that under Section 32F(7) of the Act as it stood during the relevant period before its substitution by Section 122 of the Finance Act 2007 (Act No. 2 of 2007) w.e.f. 1-6-2007 the Commission had power to pass such order as it deems fit which includes a power to remand the matter for fresh adjudication. Moreover the earlier order of this Court will also come in the way of the petitioner.
Issues:
Petition under Article 226 to quash order by Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission and mandamus to decide application under Section 32E of Central Excise Act. Analysis: The petitioner, a paints and varnish manufacturer, filed a petition under Article 226 seeking to quash an order passed by the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission and to direct a decision on their application under Section 32E of the Central Excise Act. The petitioner was issued a show-cause notice based on allegations of clandestine removal of excisable goods and production suppression. The petitioner had filed an application before the Settlement Commission, which was initially sent back to the Adjudicating Officer based on an agreement by the petitioner's Senior Counsel. A subsequent writ petition challenging this decision was dismissed by the High Court, which directed the petitioner to file an affidavit to support their claim of no concession being made. However, as no affidavit was filed, the Court declined to interfere. A review application was then filed before the Settlement Commission, which was rejected on the grounds of non-filing of the affidavit by the Senior Counsel. The petitioner argued that the application could not be withdrawn once admitted by the Settlement Commission, citing Section 32E(4) of the Act. They contended that there was no concession made for sending the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority, as per Section 32L(1) of the Act. The Court found these arguments to be misconceived. The Settlement Commission's order indicated that the Senior Counsel had agreed for remand due to the complexities involved, requiring an exhaustive examination of each issue with related evidence. The Commission, considering the need for an exhaustive inquiry, decided to send the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority based on the agreement expressed by the Senior Counsel. The Court, noting the absence of the affidavit as directed, upheld the Commission's decision to reject the review application. Additionally, it was observed that the Commission had the power under Section 32F(7) of the Act to pass orders as deemed fit, including remanding the matter for fresh adjudication. The Court also highlighted that a previous order by the Court would also impact the petitioner's case. In conclusion, the Court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it in limine.
|
