9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1075X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmission to look into the Investigation Report submitted by the Commissioner (Investigation) appointed by the Settlement Commission and also the materials that are going to be produced by the petitioner before the Commission and arrive at a conclusion - matter remanded to Settlement Commission. - W.P(MD)No.11295 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 8-6-2018 - M. Govindaraj, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.S.P.Maharajan For the Respondents : Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan ORDER The petitioner disputing the contents of the paragraphs 8 and 9 of the order of the first respondent - Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission, Chennai, dated 16.09.2009, has filed the present writ petition. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the impugned order dated 16.09.2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to examine the further evidences to be made available by the advocate. 9. In view of the foregoing the Bench was pleased to grant four weeks time to the applicant and a further two weeks to the department, during which period, both the parties shall sit together, reconcile and report back for final disposal of the case. 2. According to the petitioner, he purchased goods through unaccounted sources and he does not have any documentary evidence to substantiate the admitted duty evasion. 3. On a previous occasion, this Court, in W.P(MD)No.3457, 3458, 4347 to 4351 of 2007, after considering the material very elaborately has observed as under: 12. A plain reading of the above Section would make it amply clear that the Settlem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioners and the Revenue. No order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 4. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the Commissioner (Investigation) appointed under Settlement Commission has submitted a report on 28.11.2005 and the Settlement Commission has totally ignored the same. In support of his contention that the report of the Commissioner (Investigation) shall be relied on, he cited the judgment of this Court in Bond Stores Pvt. Ltd. v. Customs and Excise Settlement Commission reported in 2011 (272) E.L.T. 366 (Mad.), wherein it was held in paragraphs 15 to 18 as under: 15. In this case, the Commissioner (Investigation ) has given a detailed report running to 17 pages and has considered s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has been accepted and a report has been filed. Therefore, there is no multiple disclosures as stated by the Settlement Commission. This finding of the first respondent is totally erroneous. In the application the admitted duty liability is given and it has been paid. This establishes petitioner's co-operation in the settlement case. 16. In para 24 of the order, the first respondent has observed that the Revenue has conceded that there were errors in the calculation and the demand made in the show cause notice should be scaled down. This is evident from the investigation report. The various methods of calculation clearly reveal that the original demand as per the show cause notice has to be suitably modified or reduced for the pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to consider the report of the Commissioner (Investigation) and pass appropriate orders and simply shirked its duty by throwing the blame on the petitioner as if the petitioner had been making disclosures many a time each at variance with the other. As pointed out earlier there has been only one disclosure at the time of admission. The clarifications given by the petitioner is only at the time of investigation by the Commissioner (Investigation) who was duly authorised by the first respondent in terms of Section 127C(6). Such clarification or statement cannot be equated to disclosure. Therefore, it is for the first respondent to accept the disclosure originally made on the basis of the investigation report and come to the conclusion as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as given a categorical finding that the Revenue should produce positive evidence and co- operate with the Settlement Commission. 8. During the course of the arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that he will also try to produce documentary evidence as much as possible. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the observation made by the Settlement Commission in paragraph 8 of the impugned proceedings dated 16.09.2009 is set aside, as controverted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. A direction is issued to the Settlement Commission to look into the Investigation Report submitted by the Commissioner (Investigation) appointed by the Settlement Commission and also the materials that are goin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
