9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble for payment of excise duty and not to others. He also pointed out that the provisions under Chapter V of the Act do not contemplate filing of separate applications by co-applicants and, as such, there is no need to file any separate application. He distinguished the status of co-applicants from that of the main applicant by pointing out that the conditions of filing returns and accepting to pay additional duty exceeding Rs. 2 lakhs, are not applicable to the co-applicants. Referring to a decision of the Customs Central Excise Settlement Commission Additional Bench, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Prathibha Syntex Ltd. who, in turn, have followed the ruling of the Larger Bench of the Income Tax Settlement Commission in the case of Damani Brothers, he urged that once the application of the main applicant is admitted by the Settlement Commission, the Order passed by the Commissioner becomes non est in toto. Apart from the above, he drew attention of the Bench to the fact that in the grounds for consideration of the application filed by the main applicant, a prayer has been made that the provisions of Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (Rules - for short) was not applicable. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dries Ltd. filed an application dated 24-3-2001 for settlement. The application filed by the firm was admitted by this Bench in the order dated 4-6-2001. The other two, namely, Shri Pramod Kumar Agarwal, Proprietor of the firm and Shri Gopal Agarwal filed settlement applications subsequently on 9-6-2001. 5. It is true that as per the definition under Clause (c) of Section 31 of the Act, the case means any proceedings under this Act or any other Act for the levy, assessment and collection of excise duty, or any proceeding by way of appeal or revision in connection with such levy, assessment or collection which may be pending before a Central Excise Officer . As per sub-section (1) of Section 32E, an assessee can approach the Settlement Commission by filing an application for settlement of the case . Again, reverting to Clause (a) of Section 31 of the Act, assessee means a person who is liable for payment of excise duty assessed under this Act or any other Act and includes any producer or manufacturer of excisable goods or a registered person under the Rules made under this Act, of a private warehouse in which excisable goods are stored . This would mean that other than an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ire proceedings reach finality . 7. Further, it is a settled law that the provisions in a statute have to be construed as a whole in order to give effect to the intention behind the legislation. In Reserve Bank of India v. Pearless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd. [(1987) 1 Scc. 424], the Hon ble Supreme Court observed, inter alia, that if a statute is looked at, in the context of its enactment, with the glasses of the statute maker, provided by such context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words may take colour and appear different than when the statute is looked at without the glasses provided by the context. With these glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and discover what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. No part of a statute and no word of a statute can be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place . 8. In yet another judgment, the Apex Court have held that the task of interpretation of the statutory provision is an attempt to discover the intention of the legislature from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the reliance on the decision of the CEGAT 1990 (47) E.L.T. 79 (T) holding that a joint appeal could be entertained when a joint trial is permitted under Criminal Procedure Code, is not relevant here. 10. In this case, there is another reason why the applications deserve admission. The main application was filed by M/s. Agarwal Foundries on 24-3-2001 i.e. before the case was adjudicated by Commissioner. In col. 3 (iii), the main applicant has indicated the status of the applicant as a proprietary concern. The decision on the proprietary concern has effect on the proprietor. If the application moved separately by the proprietor is not allowed then an anomalous situation could arise, with different orders on the firm and its proprietor on one and the same case. As said earlier, the applications from co-noticees are entertained even though they may not be assessees , and even when they do not satisfy the conditions under Section 32E(1) of the Act. Thus, the condition of pendency of proceedings under Clause (c) of Sec. 31 could also be relaxed for effective settlement of the case as a whole. More so, in this case, since the settlement machinery under the Customs Central Excise Law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter holding co-noticees also as eligible to apply for settlement, only the eligibility of the co-noticees to come for settlement subsequent to issue of the said order in original dated 29-3-2001 is to be adjudged. 15. The issue appears to have been settled by the Mumbai Bench of the Customs Central Excise Settlement Commission vide their interim order dated 23-8-2000 in the case of M/s. Pratibha Syntex Ltd., Mumbai and relied upon by the Counsel before this Bench. The said order of the Mumbai Bench has, in turn, relied upon the decision of Income Tax Settlement Commission in the case of M/s. Damani Brothers and others covered by settlement application No. 5/IV/052/92-93/IT. Special Bench of the Income Tax Settlement Commission had, inter alia, held in the said case that Pendency of proceeding is, therefore, an essential pre-requisite for the assumption of jurisdiction by the Commission and such pendency by virtue of the definition of case as given in Section 245A(b) is to exist on the date of application. If at the time of order under Section 245D(1) allowing the application to be proceeded with, the pendency which were there at the time of making the application ceases to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
