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>Court directs Commission to proceed from prior order under section 32F(1) of Act; emphasizes timely action.</h1> <h3>Messrs Gopala Polyplast Ltd. And 2 Versus Union of India And 3</h3> The Court directed the Commission to proceed further from the stage of the order dated 27.2.2017, finding that the petitioners had crossed the initial ... Rejection of Settlement Application - communication of rejection within seven days - Held that: - On 23.2.2017, the Settlement Commission was still not satisfied that all the requirements are fulfilled - Even after issuing the said communication dated 27.2.2017, the Commission did not pass any further order of not allowing the proceedings to proceed further. Period of 14 days was over. Long after that the petitioners approached this Court - If the Commission desired to hear the petitioners further on the question of maintainability, it was open for the Commission to do so only upto a period of 14 days after issuance of notice - petition disposed off. Issues:Challenge to communication/order dated 27.2.2017 issued by the Commission under Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding settlement of case.Analysis:The petitioners challenged the communication/order dated 27.2.2017 issued by the Commission under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioners had applied for settlement of the case by filing an application on 9.2.2017 as per section 32E of the Act. The Settlement Commission issued a notice on 15.2.2017, to which the petitioners replied on 18.2.2017. However, on 23.2.2017, the Settlement Commission noted that the proceedings were 'Not allowed to be proceeded with' and directed to issue a notice as proposed. The impugned communication conveyed this decision to the petitioners, leading them to approach the Court.Even after the communication dated 27.2.2017, the Commission did not pass any further order not allowing the proceedings to proceed. The 14-day period had elapsed, prompting the petitioners to seek relief from the Court. The Court noted that if the Commission intended to hear the petitioners further on the issue of maintainability, it should have done so within 14 days of issuing the notice. The Court found that the petitioners had crossed the initial stage under section 32F(1) of the Act, and there was no purpose in issuing a notice for further hearing if the order of 27.2.2017 was a final rejection. Therefore, the Court directed the Commission to proceed further from that stage, ultimately disposing of the petition.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
