2015 (8) TMI 681 - HC - Central Excise

Power of settlement commission - whether the Settlement Commission is within its powers to impose penalty on each of the Directors in addition to the imposition of penalty upon the Company - Held that - The conjoint reading of the different provisions contained in Chapter V of the said Act leaves no doubt that the Settlement Commission can not only impose the penalty and fine in exercise of powers as Central Excise Officers but bestowed with further powers to grant immunity against the same either wholly or in part. - Since the petitioner has already furnished the Bank Guarantee for the differential amount of the duty as assessed by the Settlement Commission, the Department is at liberty to invoke the Bank Guarantee and if any shortfall is still there, the petitioner shall deposit the same within four weeks from date. In addition to the same, the petitioner shall also deposit the penalties so imposed together with the interest to be calculated in terms of the impugned order within the aforesaid period. - Decided against assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of provisions in Chapter V of the Central Excise Act related to the Settlement Commission.
2. Justification for imposing penalties on both the Company and its Directors.
3. Validity of the Settlement Commission's discretion in imposing penalties.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Provisions in Chapter V of the Central Excise Act:
The judgment discusses the incorporation of Chapter V in the Central Excise Act, introduced by Section 110 of the Finance Act, 1998, to address rampant evasion of duties and taxes. The purpose of the Settlement Commission is to facilitate speedy recovery of revenue by allowing assessees to make applications for settlement before adjudication, provided they make a true and full disclosure of their duty liability. Section 32E outlines the criteria for such applications, including the requirement that a show cause notice must have been issued and received by the applicant. The judgment emphasizes that the interpretation of terms like "assessee" should be context-specific to the applicable provisions without borrowing meanings from other sections.

2. Justification for Imposing Penalties on Both the Company and Its Directors:
The petitioner argued that imposing personal penalties on the Directors in addition to the Company was unjustified, especially in the absence of recorded reasons in the impugned order. The department countered that the concealment of tax liability justified the penalties on the Directors, citing their responsibility for the evasion. The judgment notes that Section 32E allows the Settlement Commission to impose penalties and fines, and the discretion to grant immunity is conditional on full cooperation and disclosure by the assessee. The Settlement Commission's power to impose penalties extends to individuals responsible for the company's conduct, as outlined in Section 9AA of the Central Excise Act.

3. Validity of the Settlement Commission's Discretion in Imposing Penalties:
The judgment explores whether the Settlement Commission exercised its discretion properly in imposing penalties on the Directors. It concludes that the Commission's discretion is not arbitrary but must be exercised with rationality, reasonableness, and in accordance with the statute's spirit. The judgment references the Supreme Court's interpretation of "shall" and "may" in legislative texts, emphasizing that the intent of the legislature governs the interpretation. The Settlement Commission recorded the elements of mens rea (intent) in concealing the duty liability, justifying the penalties imposed on both the Company and its Directors.

Conclusion:
The court found no grounds to interfere with the Settlement Commission's order. The petitioner had already furnished a Bank Guarantee for the differential duty amount, and the department was allowed to invoke it. Any shortfall and penalties, along with interest, were to be deposited by the petitioner within four weeks. The writ petition was dismissed without any order as to costs, and an urgent photostat certified copy of the judgment was to be provided to the parties on a priority basis.

← Previous Next →