9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, J. [Common Order]. - These writ petitions have been filed challenging the order of the second respondent dated 25-1-2008 and consequently, directing the second respondent to admit the application preferred by the petitioners dated 2-4-2007. 2. The short facts which are necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions are set out hereunder : The first respondent 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 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 114A 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 count 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 c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set out in those applications. Written submissions have also been filed before the second respondent after extracting in detail. While so, the second respondent after extracting the rival contentions, finally at paragraphs 12 and 13 has passed the following order : "12. So, the law clearly lays down as to how and on what basis an application for settlement has to be 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trong case against the show cause notice but they do not have a strong case for settlement by making submissions and arguing before the Commission as if their case is before the adjudicating authority or before an Appellate Authority. 10. Now, we have to find out whether under the said Excise Act, 1944, what is the power vested with the second respondent derives 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on which the claim of the applicant had been rejected is that the amount admitted is too low. Merely, because the amount accepted by the petitioners are very low cannot be a ground to reject the claim of the petitioners when the second respondent is empowered to decide the matter in issue and when it is vested with such powers under the Central Excise Act, 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 ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
