9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, this error was rectified by it by the order dated 16th November, 2015. The second error was in concluding that since the Department and the Assessee were not ad idem on certain factual details, the matter should be sent back for adjudication before the concerned Excise Officer. The CCESC failed to appreciate that the grounds on which the application can be rejected are restricted to those set out in Section 32-F (1) and Section 32-L of the CE Act. Therefore, for these reasons, this Court sets aside the impugned order of the CCESC rejecting the first application and the order passed by it rejecting the second application. The order passed by the CCESC, to the extent of correcting the mistake as noted does not call for interference. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to have been maintained by Mr. Rajeev Rai, an employee of the Petitioner. 3. On 27th June, 2013, the Petitioner filed an application (hereinafter referred to as the 'first application') before the CCESC under Section 32E(1) of the CE Act. In this application, the Petitioner accepted a duty liability of ₹ 1,97,69,622/- and interest of ₹ 96,01,968/-. It is stated that the documents seized by the ITD were enclosed with this application. It was contended that the figures contained in the diary maintained by Mr Rai should form the basis of the settlement. 4. On 5th August, 2013, the Department filed its report under Section 32F(3) of the CE Act before the CCESC raising a preliminary objection that the documents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CCESC this time declaring a sum of ₹ 2,59,05,014/- towards Cenvat credit wrongly claimed and interest of ₹ 1,19,30,190.41/-. The stand of the Petitioner was that the entries in the diary of Mr. Rai represented an accurate and comprehensive enumeration of the transactions undertaken by it. 7. The Department filed its report under Section 32F(3) of the CE Act before the CCESC on 7th August, 2014. It reiterated the objections raised to the first application. It again contended that since Mr. Rai's diary had not been brought to the notice of the Department during investigation, it could not be relied upon by the Petitioner. 8. On 3rd September, 2014, the CCESC passed the final order rejecting the Petitioner's sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... full and true disclosure of all facts in its application and with none of the grounds in Section 35- L CE Act being attracted, the CCESC could not have sent back the matter to the adjudicating authority only because there was no consensus between the Petitioner on the one hand and the Department on the other. Secondly he submitted that with the ITSC having held to the contrary on the very same evidence produced by the Petitioner, the order of the ITSC ought to be taken into consideration by the CCESC. 12. Countering the above submissions, Ms. Sonia Sharma, learned counsel for the Department referred to Section 32M of the CE Act, which states that every order of the CCESC under Section 32F(5) of the CE Act shall be conclusive as to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceed to dispose of the case in terms of the provisions of the CE Act as if no application seeking settlement had been made. None of the provisions in Chapter 5 of the CE Act dealing with the 'settlement of cases' envisages the CCESC sending the matter for adjudication to the Central Excise Officer because of the differences between the applicant on the one hand and the Department on the other. In other words unless the applicant before it has not stated the true and full particulars or fails to cooperate with it, the CCESC cannot decline to examine the application on the ground that there is difference between the applicant and the Department on an issue arising from the application. 15. There is no finding in the impugned ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as rectified by it by the order dated 16th November, 2015. The second error was in concluding that since the Department and the Assessee were not ad idem on certain factual details, the matter should be sent back for adjudication before the concerned Excise Officer. The CCESC failed to appreciate that the grounds on which the application can be rejected are restricted to those set out in Section 32-F (1) and Section 32-L of the CE Act. 17. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court sets aside the impugned order dated 9th June, 2014 of the CCESC rejecting the first application and the order dated 3rd September, 2014 passed by it rejecting the second application. The order passed by the CCESC on 16th November, 2015, to the extent of cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
