2016 (10) TMI 342

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... - Held that: - A writ court is not a First Appellate Court where the facts are to be re-apprised to find out whether another view can be taken on the facts established. The Settlement Commission has considered the relevant facts and has arrived at a finding as recorded in the impugned order. Such finding has not been demonstrated to be perverse. The jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission to pas .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat the respondent is guilty of removing the goods clandestinely. He has submitted that the impugned order of the Settlement Commission is therefore bad. Learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that the respondent was a Sick Industrial Undertaking within the meaning of the Sick Industrial Undertaking [Special Provisions] Act, 1985 and that a reference to the Board for Industrial and F .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , such points of law has to be answered in favour of the respondent. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record. The order impugned in the writ petition has been passed by the Settlement Commission under Section 32F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is a detailed order. It takes into consideration the rival contentions. It has dealt wi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X