2022 (12) TMI 8 - HC - Central Excise

Validity of order passed by Settlement Commission - it is alleged that the petitioners have not made full and true disclosure and have not cooperated in the proceedings conducted by it - HELD THAT - Although, Mr Singla s stand is that the provisions of Section 32F(5) of Central Excise Act 1944 will come to the aid of the respondents/revenue, that position is not correct. Once the Settlement Commission comes to a conclusion that there has been no true and fair disclosure of facts and the manner in which the liability has been derived, the Settlement Commission cannot then proceed to adjudicate the liability. This emerges upon a plain reading of Section 32E of Central Excise Act, 1944. Unless the twin conditions mentioned therein are fulfilled, the Settlement Commission cannot move further in the matter. The Settlement Commission is, necessarily, then required to remit the matter to the concerned statutory authority - in this case, the petitioners have got practically no benefit in approaching the Settlement Commission, as the quantum of liability which was indicated in the aforementioned show cause notice(s) is practically what has been the thrust on them via impugned orders. The impugned orders cannot be sustained - the matter is remitted to the concerned statutory authority for initiation of next steps, if any, as per the law.

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of the Settlement Commission's orders dated 14.03.2018 and corrigendum dated 27.03.2018.
2. Compliance with the requirement of "full and true disclosure" by the petitioners.
3. Jurisdiction and powers of the Settlement Commission under the Central Excise Act, 1944.
4. Validity of the demand notice dated 06.04.2018 issued by the respondents.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Settlement Commission's Orders:

The writ petition challenges the orders dated 14.03.2018 and corrigendum dated 27.03.2018 issued by the Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Settlement Commission. The petitioners argued that the Settlement Commission's orders were flawed because the Commission found that the petitioners did not make "full and true disclosure" and did not cooperate in the proceedings. Consequently, the Settlement Commission should have remitted the matter to the concerned statutory authority for adjudication as per the law.

2. Compliance with the Requirement of "Full and True Disclosure":

The petitioners contended that the Settlement Commission's observation that they had not made full and true disclosure should have led to the remittance of the case to the statutory authority. This argument was supported by the provisions of Section 32L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the judgment in SDL Auto Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, which emphasized that the Settlement Commission must ensure full and true disclosure before proceeding with the settlement. The respondents conceded that the issue was covered by the judgment in SDL Auto Pvt. Ltd., which stated that the Settlement Commission could not adjudicate the liability if the disclosure was not full and true.

3. Jurisdiction and Powers of the Settlement Commission:

The court referred to the judgment in SDL Auto Pvt. Ltd., which clarified that the Settlement Commission does not have the power to waive the pre-conditions of full and true disclosure. The Settlement Commission must remit the case to the Central Excise Officer if these conditions are not met. The court emphasized that the Settlement Commission is not an adjudicating authority and cannot pass an order on merits deciding the duty as demanded in the show cause notice. The court also cited Section 32F(5) and Section 32L, which outline the procedures and limitations of the Settlement Commission's powers.

4. Validity of the Demand Notice Dated 06.04.2018:

The court noted that the demand notice dated 06.04.2018, which included a significant interest component, was issued based on the impugned orders of the Settlement Commission. Since the Settlement Commission's orders were found to be flawed, the demand notice was also invalid. The court set aside the impugned orders and quashed the demand notice.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the Settlement Commission's orders could not be sustained due to the lack of full and true disclosure by the petitioners. Consequently, the impugned orders and the demand notice were set aside. The matter was remitted to the concerned statutory authority for further action as per the law. The writ petition was disposed of, and the pending application was closed.

← Previous Next →