9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not successful. With that attempt having failed, as is made clear by the communication dated 16th December, 2015, the next course available to the Respondents was to file a writ petition before this Court in which they could have questioned both the earlier order dated 14th October, 2015 and the subsequent order dated 16th December, 2015. However, going back to the CCESC six months thereafter with another application seeking the same relief, was impermissible in law. There is no question of a party going repeatedly before the CCESC with an application for identical prayer, once having failed before the CCESC. Recognising such a remedy would be fraught with grave consequences as it will give unbridled powers to the CCESC to get the revi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned SCN and the remaining gods that were not manufactured, were held not so liable for confiscation. A penalty of ₹ 2,00,000/- was imposed on the Petitioner and immunity from penalty was granted, in excess of that amount. 5. It appears that, on 9th December, 2015, an application was filed by the Principal Commissioner before the CCESC, stating, inter alia, that the Petitioner had submitted forged agreements in order to get the case settled in its favour. It is pointed out that in para 54 of the final order dated 14th October, 2015 that the CCESC had categorically observed that the said order would be void and immunities withdrawn if the Bench finds, at any time, that the applicant had concealed any particular material to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation reads as under: In the premises aforesaid, the Applicant, therefore, pray that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to review/ set aside the final order No. F-2563/CE/l5-SC/PB dated 14. I 0.2015 and subsequent letter dated 16.12.20 I5 passed by this Hon'ble Settlement Commission in the interest of justice. 8. A copy of this application was provided to the petitioner for its comments. The Petitioner sent its reply on 14th July, 2016. It appears that this subsequent application of the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence ( DGCEI ) was entertained by the CCESSC and on 27th October, 2017, a notice was issued to the parties for hearing of the application. It was heard on 20th March, 2017, 29th March, 2017 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CCESC, the Respondents itself characterised the communication dated 16th December, 2015 as an order and in fact characterised as non-speaking order. 11. The short question as far as the present petition is concerned, is whether the Respondents having once failed in their attempt to get the CCESC reopen the proceedings by invoking Section 32 K(3) of the CE Act, could have again gone before the CCESC with another application on the same grounds and asking for an identical relief, namely, annulment of the final order dated 14th December, 2015 passed by the CCESC. However, a formal application was filed on 3rd June, 2016 to correct the cause title since it was realised that the DGCEI had nothing to do with the case and it is the Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the earlier order dated 14th October, 2015 and the subsequent order dated 16th December, 2015. However, going back to the CCESC six months thereafter with another application seeking the same relief, was impermissible in law. There is no question of a party going repeatedly before the CCESC with an application for identical prayer, once having failed before the CCESC. Recognising such a remedy would be fraught with grave consequences as it will give unbridled powers to the CCESC to get the review order over and over again. In fact, as is plain, in the present instance, on the second application, the CCESC appears to have proceeded with the hearing of the application. Clearly, the entire proceedings arising from the second application fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
