2001 (6) TMI 329 - Commission - Central Excise

Settlement Commission Grants Exclusive Jurisdiction in Central Excise Case

The Settlement Commission allowed the application to proceed, acquiring exclusive jurisdiction over the case. The Commission emphasized the need for ... Settlement Issues:Application for settlement of case pertaining to show cause notices regarding capacity determination and duty liability.Analysis:The applicant, a manufacturer of MS Ingots, filed a declaration in 1997 regarding furnace capacity. The Revenue later found the actual capacity to be higher than declared. The Revenue sought assistance from different Chartered Engineers to determine the capacity, leading to discrepancies in findings. The applicant challenged the findings of one set of engineers. The applicant offered to settle by accepting a revised duty liability amount. The applicant argued that with the withdrawal of a levy scheme, no duty liability could be imposed. The applicant affirmed full disclosure of duty liability. The Revenue officials supported the Commissioner's order but acknowledged that adjudication was pending when the application was filed.The Settlement Commission considered the case's status at the time of application and subsequent adjudication. The Commission noted that the case was not pending in court at the time of application. Various writ petitions were filed and disposed of by the High Court, directing finalization of proceedings. The Commission observed complexities in issues such as capacity determination and justification for fixing capacity. Despite the complexities, the Commission found the conditions for proceeding under Section 32F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, were met. The Commission allowed the application to proceed, directing the applicant to pay the additional duty amount accepted within 30 days.In conclusion, the Settlement Commission allowed the application to proceed, acquiring exclusive jurisdiction over the case. The Commission emphasized the need for timely payment of the additional duty amount. The decision was based on satisfying the conditions under the Central Excise Act, 1944, despite the complexities involved in the case.