https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357354 The court upheld the decision of the Settlement Commission, dismissing the petitioner's application for settlement under Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court ruled that the application was not maintainable due to a previous order imposing a penalty for concealment of duty liability. The court also held that the explanation to Section 32(O)(1)(i) has retrospective effect, applying to the petitioner's case despite being inserted after the previous order. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, affirming the bar on subsequent settlement applications involving concealment of duty liability. en-us Mon, 19 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Sep 2018 12:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357354 The court upheld the decision of the Settlement Commission, dismissing the petitioner's application for settlement under Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court ruled that the application was not maintainable due to a previous order imposing a penalty for concealment of duty liability. The court also held that the explanation to Section 32(O)(1)(i) has retrospective effect, applying to the petitioner's case despite being inserted after the previous order. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, affirming the bar on subsequent settlement applications involving concealment of duty liability. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 19 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357354