9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 643X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd co-operation is not the matter in dispute, but, as to what will be the interest that may be levied on the duty that has not been paid in time, is a matter for the Commission to decide from case to case. Further, as held in Union of India v. Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd. [2011 (2) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT] the order of the Settlement Commission cannot be dissected and challenged only in respect of interest and accepting the rest. It is to be noticed that Revenue has lost substantially due to non-payment of duty at the time of import. In the result, this Court finds that the order of the Settlement Commission is a well-considered order based on the materials disclosed. The exercise of discretion with regard to interest alone does not r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty and prosecution. The Settlement Commission, after hearing the department and after considering the conduct of the petitioner in surrendering the balance DEPB licence and on noticing the error, came to the conclusion that the petitioner should be given the benefit of settlement of the case by granting immunity from prosecution and penalty under the provisions of the Customs Act and the duty paid was acknowledged and discharged the petitioner from further payment of duty. So far as the interest is concerned, it was fixed at 10% per annum on the amount settled above. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows:- "9. In view of the foregoing, we are inclined to consider favourably the request for immunities from impositio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mission, 2012 (281) E.L.T. 674 (Mad.) for total relief from interest portion. It has been held in the above decision as follows:- "7. There is no dispute/quarrel with regard to the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd. reported in (2011) 4 SCC 635, that a finding of fact recorded by the Settlement Commission are not open for examination. In this case, two findings of facts were recorded by the Settlement Commission, viz., (1) the petitioner made full disclosure and (2) the petitioner co-operated fully with the Commission and therefore the said findings are not interfered with and in fact it supports the petitioner. What has been interfered with by this Court is the manner in whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the fact that order dated 8.2.2001 passed by the Settlement Commission allowing the application of the appellant to be proceeded was not challenged by the Commissioner nor such a plea was urged by the Revenue before the High Court or in their reply to the present appeal, we find it difficult to reject the application at this stage, though, having perused some of the documents available on record, we are convinced that the appellant had not made a full and true disclosure of its affairs before the Settlement Commission. Be that as it may, we are of the opinion that having opted to get their customs duty liability settled by the Settlement Commission, under Chapter XIV-A of the Act, the appellant cannot be permitted to dissect the Settlemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
