Full and true disclosure under settlement law must reveal new duty liability, not an already admitted demand.

A settlement application under section 32E of the Central Excise Act required a full and true disclosure of duty liability not earlier disclosed to the excise authority. Where the furnace capacity had already been determined, the duty liability had been admitted and paid, and the application disclosed no new or additional liability, the Settlement Commission could not treat the same admitted liability as a fresh disclosure. On those facts, rejection of the settlement application was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Settlement Commission was justified in rejecting the petitioner's application for want of a fresh full and true disclosure of duty liability under the settlement scheme.

Analysis: An application before the Settlement Commission under section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 must rest on a full and true disclosure of duty liability not earlier disclosed to the proper excise authority. The record showed that the annual capacity of the furnace had already been determined, the duty liability had been admitted and paid, and the application did not disclose any new or additional duty liability. In such circumstances, the Commission was required to proceed on the basis of the facts disclosed in the application and could not treat an already admitted liability as a fresh disclosure.

Conclusion: The rejection of the settlement application was upheld and the challenge failed.

---