TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Settlement Commission's order imposing penalty on the assessee company and its officers, in a case settled under Chapter V of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was invalid for want of specific statutory provision and for alleged excessiveness.
Analysis: The application for settlement arose from admitted clandestine manufacture and removal of excisable goods from an export oriented unit to the domestic tariff area without due authorisation, with collection of duty from customers and non-remittance to the exchequer. Under Section 32F(7) and Section 32F(9) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Settlement Commission is empowered to pass such order as it thinks fit on matters covered by the application and to provide for duty, penalty and interest. Section 32K(1) further empowers the Commission to grant immunity from prosecution and, wholly or in part, from penalty, fine and interest, while Section 32M makes the settlement order conclusive. The Court held that the Commission had jurisdiction to settle the duty liability and to impose penalty on the company and its officers in view of the proved contraventions, and that the plea that a specific penal provision was not quoted did not vitiate the settlement order. The authorities relied on by the petitioners were distinguished on facts.
Conclusion: The challenge to the penalties failed, and the Settlement Commission's order was upheld.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
