9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 705X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. JUDGMENT: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of learned advocates for the parties. 2. The petitioners assail order dated 16-02-2015 passed by respondent No. 2 thereby negativing application filed by petitioners. The Settlement Commissioner passed order invoking its power under section 32-F(5) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "Excise Act"). 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... make the submissions. Subsequent to the hearing being conducted, respondents filed additional documents with its letters dated 08-12-2014, 13-12-2014, 27-01-2015 and 05-02-2015 and made submissions thereafter also. The petitioners were not put notice about said letters being filed. The petitioners on 05-11-2014 had specifically filed application and thereby demanded the documents along with presc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of subsequent documents, in fact, the amount of duty was reduced from Rs. 1, 28,00, 511/- to Rs. 1,20,00,000/-. In fact, the petitioners are benefited. Learned counsel for respondents relies on the Section 32-J of the Excise Act to contend that petitioners are not entitled for copies of the reports. Such an order of the Settlement Commissioner is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. Learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt to the date of hearing conducted by Settlement Commissioner. The copies of said letters/documents were also never provided to the petitioners. The petitioners had filed specific application seeking documents. Provisions of Section 32-J of the Excise Act clearly entitles the applicant to provide certified copies of any such report or part thereof. 8. Considering the aforesaid, the said letters ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
