9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1011 - HC - Central ExciseRejection of Settlement Commission application - Section 32E(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - the application was filed prior to the receipt of the order of adjudication - Held that - the order-in-original was not dispatched to the petitioner, but from the facts on record it transpires that the same was served in-person. In writ jurisdiction, we cannot embark upon the disputed question of fact about the time the order was served - It would not be possible for this Court in its writ jurisdiction to embark upon an enquiry as to the time the petitioner received order-in-original and the filing of application for settlement - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
Issues: Application for settlement rejected due to timing of filing.
Analysis: The petitioner challenged the rejection of their application for settlement by the Settlement Commissioner, contending that the application was filed before the receipt of the order of adjudication, as required by Section 32E(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner argued that the statute does not mandate the application to be filed a day prior to the order, citing the judgment in Vishnu Steels v. Union of India. The petitioner supported their claim with evidence, including a letter to the Commissioner of Service Tax and the Revenue's response before the Settlement Commissioner, showing that the application was indeed filed before the receipt of the order. The respondent, however, supported the impugned order. The Court considered the submissions of both parties and noted that in the Vishnu Steels case, the application for settlement was filed even before the dispatch of the order. In the present case, although the order-in-original was not dispatched but served in-person, the Court refrained from delving into disputed facts regarding the timing of the order's service. Even if the order was served on 17-3-2016 and the application for settlement was also filed on the same day, the Court did not give credence to a letter dated 18-3-2016, stating that no inquiry could be made in writ jurisdiction regarding the timing of receipt of the order and filing of the settlement application. Based on the factual circumstances, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition, ultimately dismissing it without costs.
|
