Settlement order payments cannot be split into instalments where the statute has removed that facility.

The substituted settlement regime under section 32F of the Central Excise Act requires settlement amounts to be paid within the prescribed time, unlike the earlier provision that expressly allowed instalments. The Bombay High Court noted that sections 32M and 32N reinforce the finality of Settlement Commission orders and the statutory mode of recovery, so writ jurisdiction could not be used to confer a facility the statute had removed. Circulars could not override the Act or the quasi-judicial settlement order. The Court therefore found no implied power to grant instalments and declined interference with the order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, could grant instalments for payment of central excise dues when the Settlement Commission's order did not provide for such instalments.

Analysis: The scheme of section 32F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was examined in light of its substitution and the earlier position under sub-sections 32F(8) and 32F(10). The Court noted that the earlier provision expressly contemplated instalments, but the substituted regime omitted that facility and required settlement amounts to be paid within the prescribed time. Sections 32M and 32N were also considered to emphasise the finality of settlement orders and the statutory mode of recovery. The circulars relied upon could not override the statutory scheme or the quasi-judicial order of the Settlement Commission. The Court further held that no implied power to grant instalments could be read into the new provision and that the legislative intent was to do away with that facility.

Conclusion: The High Court held that it had no merit to interfere and could not grant instalments against the Settlement Commission's order. The petition was dismissed.

---