Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (7) TMI 715

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ement Commission and has to either accept the opinion of the Settlement Commission in its entirety or not accept but when the Settlement Commission has exercised its discretion to impose penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/-, we would have expected the Settlement Commission to at least give some reasons, if not, very elaborate detailed reasons to indicate why it had imposed penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/-. This is particularly in view of the fact that the Settlement Commission has, in the impugned order, appreciated the conduct of petitioner and held that petitioner s claim for duty benefit was well founded and petitioner had made full and true disclosure of its duty liability, that petitioner has already deposited the admitted amount and co-operated with .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , Mumbai Zonal Unit ( DGCEI ), it was alleged that petitioner had suppressed the production of processed fabric and that accordingly there was a short payment of Central Excise duty. Petitioner submits that it deposited sum of Rs. 54,89,101/- in the course of investigation, prior to issue of notice to make this short payment of duty. Pursuant to the investigation carried out, DGCEI issued a show-cause-notice dated 05.04.2004 demanding Central Excise duty of Rs. 69,63,995/-. It was alleged that petitioner had failed to discharge appropriate duty in respect of certain fabrics. 2. On receipt of the said show-cause-notice, petitioner applied to the Settlement Commission in terms of section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ( the Act ) admi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he assessable value and corresponding duty liability were suo motto rectified and the final duty liability was worked out to Rs. 57,49,970/-. Petitioner complied with the directions of the State Government by paying the differential duty and interest. 5. Though various grounds have been raised, Mr. Jain submitted that petitioner is restricting its case only to the extent of the penalty of Rs. Ten Lakhs imposed on petitioner. Mr. Jain submitted that in the order, the Settlement Commission has accepted that petitioner had fully co-operated in spirit of settlement and paid the entire admitted duty liability. Mr. Jain submitted that the Settlement Commission has also observed that the applicant s case for cum duty benefit was well founded an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n states that petitioner had given a detailed justification for reduction in duty liability and the revenue had not rebutted. It was further submitted that petitioner had in fact admitted duty liability of Rs. 54,89,101/- which has been paid against the demand of Rs. 69,69,995/- and the Settlement Commission finally arrived at a figure of Rs. 57,49,970/- as the duty liability, a difference of less than Rs. Three Lakhs. Mr. Jain submitted that, therefore, the order of Settlement Commission, to the extent of penalty, should be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Jain also tendered a compilation of about seven orders passed by the Settlement Commission, where penalty has not been imposed at all and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... its discretion to impose penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/-, we would have expected the Settlement Commission to at least give some reasons, if not, very elaborate detailed reasons to indicate why it had imposed penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/-. This is particularly in view of the fact that the Settlement Commission has, in the impugned order, appreciated the conduct of petitioner and held that petitioner s claim for duty benefit was well founded and petitioner had made full and true disclosure of its duty liability, that petitioner has already deposited the admitted amount and co-operated with the Settlement Commission in the proceedings before it. The Settlement Commission has also concluded that petitioner was entitled to cum duty benefit and settled .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates