9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 895X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement Commission was right on facts or not. The Settlement Commission had after giving opportunity to the appellant/ petitioner reached the conclusion that the appellant/ petitioner is not entitled to the benefits of the process of settlement and the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the appellant had not made out a case for interference with the conclusions of the Settlement Commission inasmuch as there was no violation of principles of natural justice, on the part of the Settlement Commission - Petition dismissed. Process of re-assessment pursuant to the orders of the Settlement Commission - Held that:- The Writ Petition cannot be entertained in view of the fact that there is an efficacious alternative remedy available in the form of an appeal to the CESTAT. The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy and in view of the fact that the Writ Petition had been pending. Petition disposed off. - W.A.No.358 of 2015, W.P.No.15109 of 2018 M.P.No.1 of 2015 and WMP.No.17864 of 2018 W.A.No.358 of 2015: - - - Dated:- 1-8-2018 - K. K. Sasidharan And R. Subramanian, JJ. For the Appellant/ Petitioner : Mr. K. Jeyachandra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lers for utilization in the manufacture of MS ingots during the period from 01.04.2005 to 14.06.2006 under the 74 bills of entry. 4. It is also claimed by the appellant that the entire imported scrap along with locally purchased scrap was utilized as raw material in the manufacture of ingots and the same has been accounted for properly. The petitioner/ appellant has also availed of benefits of concessional rate of duty extended under customs notification No.21 of 2002 dated 01.03.2002. As per the conditions in the said notification, the petitioner/ appellant has also obtained End-use certificates from the Inspectors of the Central Excise Department and the same were produced before the Authorities concerned. They would claim that out of the 74 bills of entry under which the scrap was imported, for the scrap imported under 64 bills of entry, the appellant had been issued End use certificates and for the remaining 10 End use certificates were not obtained. Therefore, for the remaining 10 bills of entry, the petitioner/ appellant had paid the differential duty. 5. Upon receipt of the 2nd show cause notice demanding CENVAT credit to the tune of ₹ 1,43,43,413/-, the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the appellant and Mr.V.Sundareshwaran, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department. 9. Mr.K.Jayachandran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that the end-use certificates with reference to the 64 bills of entry were issued by the competent Officer of the Department, therefore, the Department cannot contend that the end-use certificates are invalid. According to him, once the end-use certificates have been issued by the Department, the Department cannot project a case as if the said certificates were issued without proper verification. 10. It is also the contention of Mr.K.Jayachandran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the conclusion of the Settlement Commission that the appellant had not made a full and true disclosure before the Settlement Commission, he would point out that the petitioner/ appellant had admitted the liability regarding the duty of ₹ 22,04,747/- and interest amounting to ₹ 4,82,359/-. He would also point out that the Settlement Commission has solely relied upon the reports and comments of the Department without adverting to the reply as well as the original settlement proposals made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tention of Mr.V.Sundareshwaran that the Department had, as of fact, found diversion of the imported scrap by the appellant. 13. The learned counsel also refers to the findings of the Settlement Commission and submitted that the Settlement Commission has noted the nature of fraudulent activities indulged into by the appellant to avoid payment of duty and also had recorded the finding that the appellant had not made a true and full disclosure of the facts and thus the appellant is not entitled to move the process of Settlement Commission for settlement of the dispute. 14. We have considered the rival submissions. As rightly pointed out by Mr.V.Sundareshwaran, learned Senior Standing Counsel in order to invoke the process of settlement, the appellant/ petitioner must show utmost good faith and make a true and complete disclosure of all the facts and it is only with the object of establishing a procedure for settlement of cases arising under the Customs Act and Central Excise Act, the Settlement Commission was constituted conferring on it certain exclusive powers including grant of immunity from prosecution etc. 15. The learned Senior Standing Counsel would further argue that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned with is the entitlement of the appellant to invoke the process of settlement, thereby become eligible for certain benefits like waiver of penal duty, penal interest as well as criminal prosecution. 18. We have gone through the order of the Settlement Commission. We find that the Settlement Commission has considered the entire facts and has come to the conclusion that the petitioner/ appellant has not made a true and full disclosure in order to enable the petitioner/ appellant to invoke the process of settlement. Mr.V.Sundareshwaran would also draw our attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shriyans Prasad Jain Vs. ITO reported in (1993) 204 ITR 616, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to point out that the High Courts sitting under Article 226 cannot go into the question of facts recorded by the Settlement Commission. A Division Bench of this Court in S.V.Shankar Vs. Settlement Commission (Income Tax Wealth Tax) and another reported in (2007) 292 ITR 633 had followed the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shriyans Prasad Jain Vs. ITO referred to supra. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Writ Court is restricted to testing the va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
