9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16, CM APPL. 40162/2016 - - - Dated:- 23-11-2016 - MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. NAJMI WAZIRI JJ. Petitioner Through: Ms. Priyanka Goel, Adv. Respondent Through: Mr. Pramod Kumar Rai, Adv. Mr. Akhil Kulshrestha, Ad S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J (Oral) 1. Common question which arises in these petitions is whether the rejection of the petitioner s request to the Settlement Commission to adjudicate upon the show cause notice issued to them on 04.12.2015 as a proceeding connected with the applications made upon the issuance of show cause notices dated 16.01.2015 and whether directions to entertain them are to be issued. 2. Brief facts necessary for decision in these petitions are that searches were conducted in the premises of the petitioners in July, 2014 during the course of which statements of various individuals were recorded. Similar searches were conducted in the residential premises of the proprietors of some of the applicant company/concerns and further statements were recorded. Show causes notices which were phrased identically were issued on 16.01.2015 demanding duty based upon valuation of the goods seized, as well as in some instances currency seized (these are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2015 relates to confiscation of seized goods and the other SCN dated 04.12.2015 relates to demand of duty on goods removed without payment of duty during the period 2012-13 to 2014-15. In the context we observe that Section 32E refers to a case and the case has been defined in Section 31(c) as any proceeding under this Act or any other Act for the levy, assessment and collection of excise duty, pending before an adjudicating authority on the date on which an application under sub-section (1) of section 32E is made. Further, we find that Special Bench Order No. 112003 issued with reference to the Customs (Settlement of Cases) Rules, 1999 have since been superseded by Customs (Settlement Commission) Rules, 2007. Form SC( C)-l has also been amended vide notification no. 54/2007-Cus.(NT) dated 28.05.2007. In addition, we also observe that as per Section 32A(7), a Special Bench can he constituted for the disposal of a particular case and not for deciding the issues as has been done in the case of Yousuff Kasim Sait where the Special Bench has laid down the guidelines for deciding different issues without disposing off any case. We also observe that in the case of Mahindra Petro Che ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has already been issued vide SCN C. No. IV(Hqrs.Prev.)Int/19/5/2014 dated 16.01.2015. 6. It is urged on the strength of the decision of the Special Bench in Yousuff Kasim Sait (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in Mahendra Petrochemical Ltd.(supra) that substance of dispute or lis before the Settlement Commission was one and the same and that the insistence that separate applications should be filed in the circumstances was unjustified. 7. Mr. Rai, the learned counsel for the Revenue urged that this Court should not entertain these proceedings. He stated that so far as the reasoning in Yousuff Kasim Sait (supra) is concerned, it was based largely on the structure of the form as then existing. It was highlighted that form has undergone substantial changes with pointed reference to specific show cause notice and case . In turn he relied upon the authority of the Madras High Court in Optigrab International v. Government of India 2010 (253) ELT 722 (Mad.). In particular reliance was placed upon the following observation: 17. Therefore, in the present case, three show cause notices were issued which were answerable to three different Adjudicating Authorities before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise Officer having jurisdiction, the manner in which such liability has been derived, the additional amount of excise duty accepted to be payable by him and such other particulars as may be prescribed including the particulars of such excisable goods in respect of which he admits short levy on account of misclassification, undervaluation, inapplicability of exemption notification or CENVAT credit [or otherwise] and any such application shall be disposed of in the manner hereinafter provided: Provided that no such application shall be made unless,- (a) the applicant has filed returns showing production, clearance and central excise duty paid in the prescribed manner; (b) a show cause notice for recovery of duty issued by the Central Excise Officer has been received by the applicant; (c) the additional amount of duty accepted by the applicant in his application exceeds three lakh rupees; and (d) the applicant has paid the additional amount of excise duty accepted by him along with interest due under [section 11AA] 10. As is evident case means a proceeding in the Act or any other Act for the levy, assessment and collection of excise duty (this prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
