https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347597 The Court held that the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission has the authority to refer matters back to the adjudicating authority if the dispute involves complex questions of fact and law. It clarified that the Settlement Commission is not a substitute for adjudication proceedings and should refer cases involving contentious issues back to the adjudicating authority. The Petitioner's argument of full and true disclosure under Section 32E of the Central Excise Act was rejected, but the Court upheld the need for detailed enquiry on the nature of the machines used. The writ petition was dismissed, and the matter was referred to the adjudicating authority for further proceedings. en-us Fri, 01 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 14:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347597 The Court held that the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission has the authority to refer matters back to the adjudicating authority if the dispute involves complex questions of fact and law. It clarified that the Settlement Commission is not a substitute for adjudication proceedings and should refer cases involving contentious issues back to the adjudicating authority. The Petitioner's argument of full and true disclosure under Section 32E of the Central Excise Act was rejected, but the Court upheld the need for detailed enquiry on the nature of the machines used. The writ petition was dismissed, and the matter was referred to the adjudicating authority for further proceedings. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 01 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347597