9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 850 - HC - Central ExciseValidity of order of settlement commission - Interpretation of Section 32-O(i) - Imposition of penalty - Suppression of facts - Held that - if there is any concealment in that application and a penalty has been imposed by the Settlement Commission on the ground of such concealment, then a second application before the Settlement Commission is barred, in my interpretation of Section 32-O(i) of the said Act. The order of the Settlement Commission does not specify whether this kind of a penalty was imposed on the writ petitioner. Just because a penalty is imposed on a show-cause notice the writ petitioner s application before the Commission was not entertained - Settlement Commission is directed to reconsider its order dated 28th March 2014 in the light of the above observations and if it is found that the penalty has not been imposed on the writ petitioner in an application for settlement under Section 32E, on the ground of concealment of particulars of their duty liability in that application, then the Commission will proceeded to consider their case on merits. - Petition disposed of.
Issues: Interpretation of Section 32-O(i) of the Central Excise Act by the Settlement Commission
In this judgment, the High Court of Calcutta addressed the issue of the correct interpretation of Section 32-O(i) of the Central Excise Act by the Settlement Commission. The Court noted that the Settlement Commission's order failed to correctly apply the provision, which states that if a penalty is imposed on an applicant for settlement on the ground of concealment of duty liability, they shall not be entitled to apply for settlement in relation to any other matter. The Court emphasized that for a penalty to bar a second application before the Settlement Commission, it must be imposed specifically for concealment in the application made under Section 32E. The judgment highlighted the importance of full and true disclosure in the application process, as mandated by Section 32E, to avoid penalties that could restrict future settlement applications. The Court pointed out that Section 32E of the Central Excise Act allows an assessee to apply to the Settlement Commission after receiving a show-cause notice but before adjudication, provided the application includes full and true disclosure of duty liability not previously disclosed to the Central Excise Officer. The judgment clarified that if a penalty is imposed by the Settlement Commission due to concealment in this initial application, it would prevent the assessee from making a second application. However, the Court noted that the Settlement Commission's order did not specify whether the penalty imposed on the petitioner was for concealment in the Section 32E application. As a result, the Court directed the Settlement Commission to review its order and proceed to consider the petitioner's case on its merits if it is found that no penalty was imposed for concealment of duty liability in the initial application. In conclusion, the High Court of Calcutta disposed of the writ application by instructing the Settlement Commission to reconsider its order in light of the Court's observations. The judgment underscored the importance of clarity in the imposition of penalties by the Commission and the need for penalties to be specifically linked to concealment of duty liability in the initial application under Section 32E to bar subsequent settlement applications. The Court's decision aimed to ensure a fair and accurate application of the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act in settlement proceedings.
|
