9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods meant for export. Certain records pertaining to the petitioners were seized on 11-8-1998 by the officers working under Director Anti Evasion (Now Directorate of Central Excise Intelligence - CEI), Mumbai. The detailed enquiry into the stock verification was also made in the factory under various panchanamas during the period 17-7-1998 to 8-8-1998. The respondents also made further investigation with the suppliers of the raw material, transporters, including employees of the petitioners. Since no charges were framed against the petitioners before the expiry of one hundred and eighty days from the date of seizure, they approached the Settlement Commission under Section 32E of the Act and presented an application on 17-8-2000 for settlement of their cases, contending inter alia that the Revenue did not issue any show cause notice in spite of lapse of more than 180 days. The petitioners while admitting their duty liability to the tune of Rs. 2,07,062/-, have referred to three invoices, the raw material (yarn) of which they did not use in the manufacture of their export product during the period 1-11-1995 to 31-8-1998. The application moved by the petitioners came to be admitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing on 11-4-2001. In the written submission of the Revenue it was pointed out that the disclosures made by the petitioners were not true and correct as the investigation revealed that the petitioners had procured 40,000 kgs. of yarn involving duty of Rs. 46,73,700/- from M/s. Sarla Polyester Ltd. It was also pointed out that the inquiry made with the various suppliers, transporters and godown keepers revealed that these goods did not reach to the factory of the applicant/petitioners but were unloaded at Bhiwandi and from there the same were diverted to the local market. The petitioners could not produce any proof of transportation of goods from Bhiwandi to their factory at Mumbai. In this view of the matter, the Revenue brought to the notice of the Settlement Commission evasion of actual duty liability to the tune of Rs. 46,73,700/- and Rs. 2,07,730/-. 12.After perusing material on record and after detailed hearing, the Settlement Commission came to the conclusion that there was huge evasion of duty. In the circumstances, the Settlement Commission held that this is not a fit case where immunity from prosecution can be granted to the petitioners under the Customs Act or any other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition, one has to examine the scheme of the machinery created for settlement of the cases under the Act; vis-a-vis; the power of the Settlement Commission. It would be clear from the provisions of Section 32E(1) of the Act, the assessee may, at any stage of the case relating to him make an application in the prescribed form containing full and true disclosure of his duty or liability which has not been disclosed before the Central Excise Officer having jurisdiction, including the manner in which liability has been derived, the additional amount of excise duty accepted to be payable by him and such other particulates as may be necessary including the particulars of such excisable goods in respect of which he admits short levy on account of misclassification or otherwise of such excisable goods, to the Settlement Commission to have the case settled. 18.The scheme of the Act further reveals that Section 32F provides that on receipt of an application under Section 32E(1), the Settlement Commission is required to call for report from the Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction and on the basis of the material contained in such report and having regard to the nature and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ghtly confined its enquiry to the disclosures made in the application filed under Section 32E(1) of the Act. The Apex Court in the case of Fatechand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission (II and WT) 176 ITR 169 and followed by it in another judgment in the case of Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I. Tripathi (1993) 201 ITR 611, while considering the scope of writ jurisdiction of the High Court cautioned the writ Court and permitted it to examine the legality of the procedure followed, not the validity of the order, it not being a Court of appeal. As laid down by the Apex Court, the writ Court should not be concerned with the decision but with the decision making process. 21.Thus, taking overall view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Settlement Commission adopted proper decision making process and the same is in accordance with law. No fault can be found with the decision making process. As observed by the Apex Court in S.I. Tripathi's case (supra) judicial scrutiny cannot go beyond this point. As already pointed out above, the Settlement Commission was well within its jurisdiction to refuse to grant immunity to the petitioners. The Settlement Commission rightly came to the conclus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
