2004 (9) TMI 119 - HC - Central Excise

Settlement Commission's Central Excise duty order upheld; Court finds no jurisdictional error

KASHISH SILK MILLS PVT. LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA

The Court dismissed the petition challenging the Settlement Commission's order under the Central Excise Act, which determined the duty liability and ... Settlement Commission - Order - Finality of Issues:Challenge to impugned order passed by Settlement Commission under Central Excise Act, 1944. Compliance with Settlement Commission's order. Jurisdictional error in Settlement Commission's decision. Petitioner's change of mind post-acceptance of Settlement Commission's order.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the impugned order passed by the Settlement Commission under Central Excise Act, 1944, which settled the Central Excise Duty liability at Rs. 84,68,535/-. The Settlement Commission determined the duty demandable and required the petitioner to pay the balance amount of Rs. 4,37,088/- within 30 days of the order. The petitioner was granted immunity from interest payment and prosecution as per the Settlement Commission's order.Upon receiving the order, the petitioner complied by depositing the balance amount within the stipulated time frame. However, subsequently, the petitioner sent a letter to the Commissioner of Central Excise stating that the amount was being deposited under protest. The petitioner then filed a petition challenging the Settlement Commission's order after a lapse of four months from the date of deposit.The Court noted that under Section 32F(7) of the Act, the Settlement Commission's order is final and can only be challenged on grounds of fraud or jurisdictional error. The petitioner argued that the Settlement Commission committed a jurisdictional error by not considering a Full Bench judgment of the Tribunal. However, the Court found no evidence that the Tribunal's decision was cited during the oral hearing before the Settlement Commission.Even if there was an error in law by the Settlement Commission, the Court, in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, refrained from intervening when no jurisdictional error was established. The Court emphasized that the petitioner initially accepted and complied with the Settlement Commission's order but later changed its stance by depositing the amount under protest.Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition, stating that since the Settlement Commission had reached a just conclusion and the petitioner had complied with the order, there was no basis for intervention. The petition was rejected, and no costs were imposed on the parties.