TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Settlement Commission's Order Challenge Denied: Deemed Credit Issue Rejected, Prosecution Status Confirmed</h1> <h3>GUJARAT STEEL INDUSTRIES Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> GUJARAT STEEL INDUSTRIES Versus UNION OF INDIA - 2009 (240) E.L.T. 347 (Guj.) Issues:1. Challenge to order of Settlement Commission regarding settlement application.2. Alleged errors in final order related to deemed credit and immunity from prosecution.3. Commission's power to review its own order.4. Interpretation of Tribunal's decision on deemed credit.5. Determination of launching of prosecution.6. Commission's findings on errors apparent on record and rectification.Analysis:1. The petition challenged the Settlement Commission's order dated 20th July, 2004, rejecting a Miscellaneous Application filed by the petitioners regarding settlement of disputes. The application highlighted two alleged errors in the final order: non-extension of deemed credit based on a Tribunal decision and failure to grant immunity from prosecution under the assumption of an already launched prosecution.2. The petitioners contended that the Commission erred in holding it lacked the power to review its final order. Regarding deemed credit, it was argued that the Commission misunderstood the Tribunal's decision, which did not apply as the exemption limit was not crossed by the petitioners. Concerning prosecution, it was asserted that no formal prosecution had been initiated despite the arrest of the partners.3. The Commission, in response to the plea on deemed credit, stated that the issue was thoroughly considered and consciously rejected in the final order, hence no error was apparent for review. Similarly, on the matter of prosecution, the Commission verified the status with the Revenue and received confirmation of prosecution sanction and filing of a criminal complaint.4. The Commission's observations emphasized that even if errors were perceived by the petitioners, it did not constitute mistakes apparent on record warranting rectification. Merely misinterpreting a Tribunal order or misjudging the prosecution status did not qualify as grounds for review or rectification according to the Commission.5. The Commission justified its stance by asserting that once tax liabilities were settled, proceedings reached finality and could not be revisited based on alleged errors. This principle applied to both the deemed credit issue and the immunity from prosecution matter, as decisions made during settlement proceedings were deemed conclusive.6. Ultimately, the petition was rejected as the Commission found no merit in the challenges raised by the petitioners. The judgment concluded by discharging the notice without any order on costs, affirming the Commission's decision on the settlement application and the alleged errors in the final order.
TaxTMI 