Court allows petition challenging Customs Commission's order. Rejection based on non-cooperation deemed unfounded.

The Court allowed the writ petition challenging the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Settlement Commission's order rejecting the petitioner company's application. The Court held that the rejection based on alleged non-cooperation was unfounded as the petitioner had provided most requested Annexures. The Court emphasized that failure to respond when all material was not provided did not amount to non-cooperation. The Commission's order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, directing the petitioner to respond within three weeks of receiving the remaining Annexures.

---

---

Issues: Challenge to order of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Settlement Commission rejecting application under Section 32 L of Central Excise Act, 1944 made applicable to Service Tax.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition challenged the order dated 16.03.2018 passed by the Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Chennai, rejecting the petitioner company's application under Section 32 L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, applicable to Service Tax under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994.

2. The impugned order reflected that despite providing most Annexures sought by the petitioner company, the Settlement Commission rejected the application due to alleged non-cooperation for more than three months, which the petitioner disputed.

3. Counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that out of 17 Annexures sought, only 10 were provided, disputing the Commission's claim of delay. The petitioner argued against the assumption of delay in submitting responses leading to non-suiting.

4. The Revenue's counsel mentioned that out of the remaining 7 Annexures, 2 were located and provided, with efforts ongoing to find the rest, indicating ongoing cooperation from their end.

5. The Court noted that the Settlement Commission's finding of non-cooperation was not in line with the legal standard set by a Division Bench in a previous case, defining cooperation as full disclosure of facts and non-cooperation as the opposite.

6. The Court held that failure to respond when all material was not provided did not amount to non-cooperation as understood by the Settlement Commission, leading to the order's rejection being deemed unacceptable.

7. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, setting aside the Commission's order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to respond within three weeks of receiving the remaining Annexures. If any document remained untraceable, the Commission was to proceed with adjudication after notifying the petitioner and granting sufficient time for response. Pending petitions were closed without costs.

---