2017 (1) TMI 641 - SC - Central Excise

Recalling of the order - adjudication - Appeal against the decision Union of India And Another Versus Dharampal Satyapal And Others 2013 (10) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT - Held that - the appellants on the previous occasion had submitted that the matter should be thrashed out before the Settlement Commission, but today it is argued that the matter requires to be adjudicated by the adjudicating authority as a show cause notice was issued. A plea of improper advise is canvassed - a cost of ₹ 4 crores therefore, imposed on the appellants.

Summary

Issues: Recall of order, imposition of costs, jurisdiction of Settlement Commission vs. adjudicating authority, plea of improper advice, non-deposition of costs, no extension of time for deposition.

In this judgment by the Supreme Court, the main issue was the recall of an order dated 31st August, 2016 and the imposition of costs. The Court, after hearing both parties, decided to dismiss the civil appeal but imposed costs of &8377; 4 crores on the appellants due to the change in argument regarding whether the matter should be resolved before the Settlement Commission or the adjudicating authority. The Court emphasized that the adjudicating authority should proceed with the adjudication without being influenced by the High Court's order. The appellants were given four weeks to deposit the costs, and failure to do so would result in the authority taking necessary legal action. The judgment also stated that no petition seeking an extension of time for cost deposition would be entertained by the Registry.

The judgment delved into the jurisdictional aspect of whether the matter should be resolved before the Settlement Commission or the adjudicating authority. Initially, the appellants had suggested resolving the matter before the Settlement Commission, but later argued for adjudication by the adjudicating authority due to a show cause notice being issued. This change in stance led to the imposition of costs by the Court. The judgment highlighted the importance of the adjudicating authority proceeding independently without being influenced by previous orders, specifically emphasizing that the authority should not be swayed by the High Court's decision.

Furthermore, the judgment addressed the issue of improper advice raised by the appellants. The plea of improper advice was canvassed during the proceedings, indicating a potential discrepancy in legal counsel's guidance. This plea likely contributed to the Court's decision to impose costs on the appellants. The judgment emphasized the need for parties to present consistent and well-founded arguments throughout the legal process to avoid adverse consequences such as cost imposition.

Additionally, the judgment specified the consequences of non-deposition of costs within the stipulated time frame. It outlined that failure to deposit the imposed costs within four weeks would result in the adjudicating authority taking necessary legal action as advised by law. This provision underscored the importance of complying with court orders and timelines to avoid further legal repercussions or delays in the adjudication process.

Lastly, the judgment concluded by stating that no petition seeking an extension of time for the deposition of costs would be entertained by the Registry. This directive aimed to maintain the efficiency and integrity of the legal process by ensuring strict adherence to timelines and procedural requirements set forth by the Court.