9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 728X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade. - it is clear from the previous order in this case as to why the penalty was imposed. The petitioners were found by the central excise Commissioner to have evaded duty. The petitioners approached the Settlement Commission by offering to pay a substantial part of the additional duty and the Settlement Commission found that the petitioner company ought to be penalised to a certain extent for having evaded the duty that it was originally liable to pay. - In the light of the penalty imposed on the petitioner company herein and such penalty covering the expression “concealment of particulars of his duty liability” in Section 32-O of the said Act, the Settlement Commission cannot be faulted for having rejected the subsequent attempt at settl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inquire of the petitioning assessee why it should be permitted to proceed before the Settlement Commission. It is possible that such notice is not issued; it is than [sic] proceed with the application is deemed to have been given. The procedure before the Settlement Commission requires a report to be furnished by the Principal Commissioner of Central Excise or Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the matter. If such report is not furnished within the time indicated, the Settlement Commission may proceed with the matter nonetheless. 4. Section 32F of the Act lays does the procedure to be followed on receipt of an application under Section 32E thereof and sub-section (5) of the later provision gives due authority to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of a levy or the like for the wrongful conduct of the person suffering the same. 7. When an assessee approaches a Settlement Commission after receiving a notice of demand indicating that it had paid less duty than what was due on the relevant transaction, it accepts the demand in full or in part by evincing its desire to settle the amount. The assessee is then required to make a clean breast of things and indicate the extent to which it accepts the demand. The Settlement Commission adjudicates on the quantum of the demand made by the central excise officer in the light of the quantum admitted and accepted by the assessee to be due from it in respect of the relevant transaction. Implicit in an assessee approaching the Settlement Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not necessary for the present purpose : Section 32-O. Bar on subsequent application for settlement in certain cases. - Where (i) An order of settlement passed under sub-section (7) of section 32F, as it stood immediately before the commencement of section 122 of the Finance Act, 2007 (22 of 2007) or sub-section (5) of section 32F, provides for the imposition of a penalty on the person who made the application under section 32E for settlement, on the ground of concealment of particulars of his duty liability; . 10. It is absurd to suggest that the expression, concealment of particulars of his duty liability , pertains to the application made before the Settlement Commission. If that were to be so, every knave and his acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e commission is deemed to have rendered a finding that the assessee had concealed the particulars as to the duty payable. It is such assessed conduct that amounts to the concealment of particulars of the duty and prevents the same assessee from approaching the Settlement Commission a second time after it has once been found to have concealed the particulars of the duty liability. In the petitioner-company having exhausted its right to approach the Settlement Commission upon the order of January 4, 2011 being pronounced, the petitioners could not have carried the demand now made by way of a subsequent application under Section 32E of the said Act before the Settlement Commission. 13. The order impugned dated August 27, 2014 is appropriate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red to be deducted from the deposit already made. On penalty, the Settlement Commission took into account the facts and circumstances of the case and repetitive nature of offence before granting immunity from penalty as is in excess of ₹ 5,00,000/- . 17. Thus, it is clear from the previous order in this case as to why the penalty was imposed. The petitioners were found by the central excise Commissioner to have evaded duty. The petitioners approached the Settlement Commission by offering to pay a substantial part of the additional duty and the Settlement Commission found that the petitioner company ought to be penalised to a certain extent for having evaded the duty that it was originally liable to pay. 18. In the light of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
