9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng. 4. The facts, in brief, are that, on the basis of an application filed before it by the Petitioner under Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ('CE Act'), arising out of a Show Cause Notice ('SCN') dated 13th July, 2012 issued to it, a final order was passed by the Customs & Central Excise Settlement Commission ('CCESC') on 14th October, 2015. In terms of the said order, the customs excise duty payable by the petitioner was settled at Rs. 38,96,729/-, which was asked to be appropriated out of the sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- deposited by the Petitioner. As regards the interest liability, an admitted liability of Rs. 76,645/- was asked to be appropriated. A redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- was also asked to be appropriated. The excisable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which reads "The final order has been passed. The Revenue, if aggrieved, can approach the appropriate forum. Please inform accordingly." It appears that on the basis of the above noting, a communication dated 6th December, 2015 was addressed by the Special Investigating Officer of CCESC to the Principal Commissioner as under: "Please refer to this office letter dated 09.12.2015. In this regard, I have been directed to communicate that in present matter, the Final Order has already been passed. The Revenue, if aggrieved, can approach the appropriate Forum." 7. Nearly six months thereafter, on 31st May, 2016, another application was filed by the Director General, before the CCESC, again seeking review of the final order dated 14th December ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... particular material to the settlement or had given false evidence........" According to Mr. Narula, the earlier application which was filed before the CCESC, was, in fact, not considered by the CCESC at all. A communication dated 16th December, 2015 addressed by the CCESC to the Respondents should not be construed to be an order rejecting its application for review. According to him, the noting on file showed that there was not even an appropriate coram of the CCESC at the time when the said application was considered. For these reasons, according to him, it was open to the respondents to again approach the CCESC with another application. 10. Notwithstanding the communication dated 16th December, 2015, it is pointed out by Mr. J.K. Mittal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or in other words, there was a remedy available to the respondents against such an order. In fact, even Mr. Narula, who is unable to dispute the fact that whenever the Department of the Revenue is aggrieved by an order of the settlement of the CCESC, there is an alternative remedy with the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the said order. In other words, it is not as if the Respondents did not have a remedy against the order, what they perceive to be an erroneous order. This erroneous order was passed in an application filed by them under Section 32 (K)(3) of the CE Act. With that attempt having failed, as is made clear by the communication dated 16th December, 2015, the next course available to the Resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
