Court upholds Settlement Commission's decision dismissing Revenue's challenge. Participation implies consent, preventing later claims.

The Court upheld the Settlement Commission's decision, dismissing the Revenue's writ petition challenging the order. The Court found no merit in the objections raised post-decision, as the Revenue's participation during the proceedings implied consent and prevented later claims of non-compliance. The Settlement Commission's revised duty liability was accepted and paid, with the Court refusing to interfere in its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging Settlement Commission's order dated 27th January, 2005.

Analysis:
The petition filed by the Revenue challenges the Settlement Commission's order alleging the second respondent's involvement in maintaining parallel invoices for TMT Bars, suspecting clandestine removal of finished goods without excise duty payment. The show cause notice demanded Rs. 1,05,35,493 under sections 11A(1) and 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The second respondent admitted duty liability of Rs. 71,75,961 and sought immunity from fines, penalties, and interest. The Assistant Commissioner opposed the application and claimed the Department should be allowed to engage a special counsel. The Settlement Commission entertained the application and revised the duty liability to Rs. 91,38,562, which was paid.

Regarding the Settlement Commission's jurisdiction, Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 allows an assessee to apply for settlement, disclosing duty liability and additional excise duty payable. Once the application meets requirements, the Commission issues a notice for explanation within 7 days, deciding within 14 days whether to proceed or reject the application. In this case, the second respondent's application was duly served and the Commissionerate complied with forwarding the necessary report under section 32F(1).

The Revenue's objection to the Settlement Commission's decision was deemed too late, as they allowed the application to proceed by forwarding their report. The presence of both parties during the hearing implied consent, preventing the Revenue from later claiming non-compliance with legal provisions or principles of natural justice. The Court upheld the Settlement Commission's decision based on the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissing the writ petition without costs.

In conclusion, the Court found no merit in the writ petition challenging the Settlement Commission's order, as the Revenue's consent during the proceedings prevented any valid objections post-decision. The Court upheld the decision based on the specific circumstances of the case, refusing to interfere in its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

---