https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268354 The judgment clarifies that a penalty imposed on M/s. Rohit Ferro Tech Limited does not automatically bar them from approaching the Settlement Commission for a second case unless the penalty was due to concealing duty liability information. It emphasizes the need for full disclosure under Section 32E and directs the Settlement Commission to reconsider its order, ensuring fair treatment and proper application of the Central Excise Act provisions. The Court instructs the Commission to review the case without prejudice if no penalty was imposed for concealing duty liability information, aiming for a just resolution. en-us Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Jan 2016 14:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268354 The judgment clarifies that a penalty imposed on M/s. Rohit Ferro Tech Limited does not automatically bar them from approaching the Settlement Commission for a second case unless the penalty was due to concealing duty liability information. It emphasizes the need for full disclosure under Section 32E and directs the Settlement Commission to reconsider its order, ensuring fair treatment and proper application of the Central Excise Act provisions. The Court instructs the Commission to review the case without prejudice if no penalty was imposed for concealing duty liability information, aiming for a just resolution. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268354