9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by the Settlement Commission at Annexure 'F' on 7-4-2003 in Settlement Application No. 50 of 2000. 2.Having heard the learned Counsel Shri Dave for the petitioner and having carefully gone through the impugned order Annexure 'F' passed by the Settlement Commission, it appears to us that the Settlement Commission, on the facts of this case, came ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eof." 3.From the impugned order at Annexure 'F,' it is clear that the Settlement Commission granted immunity to the petitioner from payment of interest under the Central Excise Act, 1944 so as the prosecution. 4.The aforesaid impugned order was duly complied with by the petitioner by depositing the balance amount of Rs. 4,37,088/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. As the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lement Commission under this Section is final and it cannot be challenged on any other ground except on the ground of fraud or on the ground of jurisdictional error. It was tried to be submitted by Mr. Dave for the petitioner that while passing the impugned order, the Settlement Commission committed jurisdictional error as it had not considered Full Bench judgment of the Tribunal cited before it. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke of argument that the Settlement Commission committed error on law while settling the application in exercise of its powers under Section 32F(7), then also this petition being petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not like to exercise its powers when no jurisdictional error committed by the Commission when it had arrived at just conclusion and the fact is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
