Statutory settlement scheme requires a settlement certificate; appellate authority cannot condone delay or assume the designated authority's role.

Under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, settlement could not be presumed without a settlement certificate under Section 92 of the Finance Act, 1998, and the scheme did not confer power to condone delay in payment. The Commissioner (Appeals) could not assume the role of the designated authority or treat the default as merely technical in the absence of statutory authority. On that basis, the appellate order was held unsustainable and the Revenue's appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether delay in payment under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme could be treated as merely technical and whether the Commissioner (Appeals) could assume the role of the designated authority to condone such delay and treat the matter as settled without a settlement certificate under Section 92 of the Finance Act, 1998.

Analysis: The scheme required compliance as provided by law and settlement could not be presumed in the absence of a settlement certificate. The Commissioner (Appeals) had no jurisdiction to act as the designated authority, and the scheme itself did not confer discretion to condone the delay in payment. The characterisation of the default as technical was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was not sustainable. The appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory settlement scheme requires issuance of a settlement certificate and does not confer power to condone delay, settlement cannot be assumed and the appellate authority cannot usurp the designated authority's function.

---