2009 (7) TMI 156 - HC - Central Excise

Whether it is open to this Court, in the exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction, to grant installments to the Petitioners even when the Settlement Commission itself in its order has not so provided? Held that - It is clear that as the order of settlement commission is final and mode of recovery is also set out therein, it will not be open to the Collector of Central Excise assuming that the circular of 5th August 1985 and 11-4-1994 to interfere with the order passed by the Settlement Commission, which is exercising quasi judicial powers. In the circumstances, can a writ court exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction, when the settlement commission has thought it fit not to grant any installment, grant installments assuming that under Section 32F(8) there is an implied power to grant installments. This court ordinarily, ought not to interfere in the exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction with the order passed by the Settlement Commission.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to grant installments when not provided by the Settlement Commission.

Analysis:
The case involved a petition where the Petitioners sought permission to pay their dues in installments after the Settlement Commission's order. The issue was whether the High Court, in its extraordinary jurisdiction, could grant installments when not provided by the Settlement Commission. The counsel relied on circulars issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, allowing payment by installments in deserving cases. However, the Settlement Commission's order did not include such provision.

The application was filed in 2007, and the Settlement Commission passed an order in 2008. The relevant legal provisions were discussed, including the substitution of Section 32F by Act No. 22 of 2007, which impacted the power to grant installments. Earlier, the Petitioners had challenged a Commission order in a previous petition, which was sent back for fresh hearing. The importance of Section 32F(8) in terms of settlement terms and conditions was highlighted.

The Finance Bill specified time limits for the disposal of settlement applications and set conditions for settlement orders, emphasizing that the settlement amount must be paid within 30 days without extension. The court noted changes in the legislation that removed the explicit provision for installments, indicating the legislative intent to exclude such payment options. Comparisons were drawn with provisions under the Income Tax Act, showing differences in treatment regarding installment payments.

Ultimately, the court found no merit in the petition, emphasizing the finality of the Settlement Commission's order and the lack of legislative provision for installments under the current law. The judgment discharged the rule with no costs awarded.