9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 32F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3.The brief facts leading to filing of this petition, briefly stated, are as under :- The petitioner is registered under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to manufacture/process man-made fabrics. The searches carried out by the officers of the Central Excise at the premises of M/s. Balaji Industries, Surat, another processor, and its folding and transport contractors on 6-11-1997 resulted into seizure of certain incriminating documents, indicating clandestine removal of processed fabrics by the petitioner. To verify the facts, the officers of the Central Excise Department searched the factory premises of the petitioner on 6-11-1997 and also its customers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on determined the excise duty liability of the petitioner at Rs. 1,48,19,820/- and after giving credit of Rs. 28,07,319/- already paid by the petitioner and the traders, the Commission held that the balance duty payable by the petitioner was Rs. 1,20,12,501/-. Penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs was also imposed on the petitioner. Certain directions regarding waiver of interest were granted in excess of 10%. 4.The impugned order is challenged on various grounds. However, it is not necessary to enumerate or deal with those challenges because the first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Settlement Commission had taken into consideration the report dated 18-9-2002 submitted by the Additional Commissioner (Preve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner was liable to be paid by them. It is submitted that at the final hearing before the Commission, the Revenue had submitted the aforesaid letter dated 18-9-2002 and no other concrete evidence was produced before the Commission and, therefore, the aforesaid letter dated 18-9-2002 must have heavily weighed with the Commission in determining the petitioner's liability at Rs. 1.48 Crores as against the petitioner's admitted duty liability of Rs. 28 lakhs. 5.On the other hand, Ms. D.N. Raval, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents has relied on the provisions of Section 32J and submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to get copies of any documents or report unless the petitioner made an application for obtaining suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7.At this stage, it is also necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act, which are as under :- 32F. - Procedure on receipt of an application under Section 32E. (1) to (6) . . . . . . . . (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 furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nary circumstances that the Settlement Commission would be justified in shutting out any such adverse material being brought to the notice of the assessee. For instance, disclosure of confidential information contained in a report or document or disclosure of identity of the informant may expose some person or persons to the risk of loss of life or limb. The Commission may then be justified in permitting withholding copy of such document or report being given to the assessee or in providing for appropriate safeguards before directing a copy of such document or report being given to the assessee. 9.Nothing is pointed out in the facts of the instant case as to why a copy of the said letter dated 18-9-2002 should not be supplied to the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... At this stage, we would also like to make it clear that since this Court is exercising its discretionary extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, and since the Commission had by the impugned order determined the excise duty liability of the petitioner at Rs. 1.48 crores and the petitioner had paid only Rs. 28,07,319-08, the relief to be granted to the petitioner would be subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit with the respondent authorities a further sum of Rs. 28 lakhs without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. 11.On the short ground about violation of principles of natural justice, without going into the merits of the controversy which was examined by the Settlement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
