https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326953 The court clarified that the introduction of the "Explanation" to section 32-O(1)(i) did not alter the existing legal landscape regarding the one-time bar, as it was consistent with the statutory intent. The court found the argument regarding the effect of the introduction and subsequent omission of sub-section (2) to Section 32-O untenable, emphasizing that each application for settlement was disposed of before the next one was filed. Penalties were indeed imposed for concealment of duty liability, leading to the conclusion that the respondents were barred from filing subsequent settlement applications. The court set aside the previous judgment, upholding the Settlement Commission's order. en-us Wed, 03 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Oct 2016 15:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326953 The court clarified that the introduction of the "Explanation" to section 32-O(1)(i) did not alter the existing legal landscape regarding the one-time bar, as it was consistent with the statutory intent. The court found the argument regarding the effect of the introduction and subsequent omission of sub-section (2) to Section 32-O untenable, emphasizing that each application for settlement was disposed of before the next one was filed. Penalties were indeed imposed for concealment of duty liability, leading to the conclusion that the respondents were barred from filing subsequent settlement applications. The court set aside the previous judgment, upholding the Settlement Commission's order. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 03 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326953