2016 (11) TMI 1348 - HC - Central Excise

Search - Demand - Held that - As is evident case means a proceeding in the Act or any other Act for the levy, assessment and collection of excise duty (this provision has been incorporated for reference in the relevant provision of Customs Act), pending before an adjudicating authority before which the application under Section 32E is made - In respect of two sets of show cause notices potentially there even could have been six but these do not detract from the fact that investigation was a seamless one in relation to the same trigger, i.e., same search and seizure which took place on 17.07.2014. In that proceeding there was only one cause that resulted in the issuance of show cause notices - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Whether rejection of petitioner's request to the Settlement Commission to adjudicate upon the show cause notice is justified and whether directions to entertain them are to be issued.

Analysis:
The petitions raised the issue of whether the rejection of the petitioner's request to the Settlement Commission to adjudicate upon the show cause notice was justified. The Settlement Commission ruled that the applications as filed could not be entertained and that each petitioner should have filed two applications before the Commission. The Commission based its decision on the interpretation of Section 32E of the Central Excise Act and the definition of a "case." The Commission held that the applicant should have filed separate applications for each of the two show cause notices dated 16.01.2015 and 04.12.2015. The Commission also referred to previous decisions and rules to support its reasoning.

The petitioners argued that the reasoning of the Settlement Commission was flawed and untenable. They highlighted that the first show cause notice clearly indicated that further investigations were in progress and subsequent show cause notices would be issued separately. The petitioners contended that the substance of the dispute before the Settlement Commission was the same, and separate applications were unnecessary. They relied on previous decisions and legal principles to support their argument.

In response, the counsel for the Revenue argued against entertaining the petitions, citing changes in the form structure and specific references to show cause notices and cases. The counsel referred to a decision by the Madras High Court to emphasize the importance of separate show cause notices being treated as distinct cases. The counsel highlighted the definition of a "case" under the Central Excise Act and the requirements for making an application to the Settlement Commission.

The High Court analyzed the facts and legal provisions involved in the case. The Court disagreed with the reasoning of the Settlement Commission and the interpretation of separate applications for each show cause notice. The Court emphasized that the investigation was seamless and related to the same trigger event. The Court concluded that the petitioners should not be required to file separate applications and set aside the order directing them to do so. The Court directed that the applications pending in the two sets of show cause notices should proceed in accordance with the law expeditiously. The writ petitions were allowed in favor of the petitioners.