9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the affidavit by the learned Senior Counsel, which was not done, therefore, the Commission was justified in rejecting the review application. Even otherwise, we are of the considered opinion that under Section 32F(7) of the Act as it stood during the relevant period before its substitution by Section 122 of the Finance Act, 2007 (Act No. 2 of 2007) w.e.f. 1-6-2007 the Commission had power to pass such order as it deems fit which includes a power to remand the matter for fresh adjudication. Moreover the earlier order of this Court will also come in the way of the petitioner. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ery certificate, the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice dated 27th August, 1999 calling upon the petitioner to show-cause to the Commissioner as to why Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 1,74,71,910/- be not demanded and recovered from it under Rule 9(2) read with Section 11A(l) of the Act and also why it be not penalized for contravening the various provisions of the Act and the Rules. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application on 9th February, 2004 under Section 32E of the Act before the Settlement Commission. The application was admitted and objections were invited. At the time of hearing of the application the Settlement Commission vide order dated 5th October, 2005 had sent back the matter to the Adjudicating Officer und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the application had been admitted by the Settlement Commission, it could not have been withdrawn as there is specific prohibition under Section 32E(4) of the Act. He further submitted that there is no question of giving any concession that the matter be sent back to the Adjudicating Authority. According to him the provision of Section 32L(1) of the Act would be applicable where the person who had made an application for settlement does not cooperate. In the present case, the petitioner had cooperated and, therefore, the order passed under Section 32L(1) of the Act cannot be sustained. He further submitted that apart from sub-secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the learned Senior Counsel whereupon this Court had directed the petitioner to file an affidavit of the Senior Counsel, which was not filed, therefore, the Court did not interfere with it leaving it open to the petitioner to file a review application before the Settlement Commission. The Commission insisted upon filing of the affidavit by the learned Senior Counsel, which was not done, therefore, the Commission was justified in rejecting the review application. Even otherwise, we are of the considered opinion that under Section 32F(7) of the Act as it stood during the relevant period before its substitution by Section 122 of the Finance Act, 2007 (Act No. 2 of 2007) w.e.f. 1-6-2007 the Commission had power to pass such order as it deems ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
