9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued show cause notice dated 6-1-2006 and corrigendum dated 15-2-2006 and 20-11-2006 proposing a duty demand together with interest besides seeking to initiate penal proceedings under Section 11-AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 114-A and Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. As against the said demand, petitioners preferred an application before the second respondent in some cases admitting the liability to certain extent and in some cases contending that no due is payable. The first respondent filed counter in those proceedings. The second respondent has posted the matter for admission on 7-1-2008. However, by an order dated 25-1-2008, the second respondent was pleased to reject the applications filed by the petitioners. Challenging the same, these writ petitions have been filed. 3. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the second respondent rejected the claim of the petitioners on three grounds viz., (i) the amount admitted by the petitioners are too low (ii) because of the complexity of the matter it requires thorough investigation (iii) it is not a matter of adjudication before the Commission. 4. According to the learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceeded with or to be rejected. The basic points to be considered by the Commission in this regard are materials contained in the report of the jurisdictional Central Excise Commissioner on the application, nature and circumstances of the case and/or the complexity of the litigation involved therein and an opportunity has to be given to the application of being heard. The Bench finds that the report of the Commissioner of Central Excise in this regard is not agreeing with the applicant's contention in his application and that the investigation conducted by them has been very complex. The contentions of the applicant in his application against the Show Cause Notice are not only very lengthy but also complicated and on legal, procedural, technical and evidentiary points. The Bench finds that if this case is admitted for settlement, it will be very difficult to arrive at the correct amount of duty without ordering a very detailed investigation again which may not be possible at this stage. Going into the detailed and contentious submissions made by both sides and to come to a conclusion giving detailed reasons of Bench's findings on duty involved in several annexures to the Show Cau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 32 (6) and (7). Section 32 of the said Act reads as follows: "(6) Where an application is allowed to be proceeded with under sub-section (1), the Settlement Commission may call for the relevant records from the Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction and after examination of such records, if the Settlement Commission is of the opinion that any further enquiry or investigation in the matter is necessary, it may direct the Commissioner (Investigation) to make or cause to be made such further enquiry or investigation and furnish a report on the matters covered by the application and any other matter relating to the case." "(7) After examination of the records and the report of the Commissioner of Central Excise received under sub-section (1), and the report, if any, of the Commissioner (Investigation) of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (6), and after giving an opportunity to the applicant and to the Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction to be heard, either in person or through a representative duly authorised in this behalf, and after examining such further evidence as may be placed before it or obtained by it, the Settlement Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct 1944. It is expected to do so fairly and without washing its hands on the issues raised by the petitioners. 14. Though the learned Senior counsel drawn my attention to several decisions rendered by the second respondent, however the learned Senior counsel fairly submitted that decisions may not have the binding factors on this Court, but the same has been cited in order to show that the reasoning given in the impugned order is totally unacceptable in view of the decisions of the second respondent in certain other matter which came before it for adjudication. Hence I am not traversing each one of the orders enclosed along with the typed set and relied on by the learned Senior counsel. However it would be suffice to incorporate only the judgments of the Apex Court, which has been relied on by the Settlement Commission when it has been asked to adjudicate a matter. In (1994) 2 SCC 374, (Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. Express Newspapers Limited), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as follows: "It is equally evident that once an application made under Sec.245-C is admitted for consideration (after giving notice to and considering the report of the Commissioner of In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
