https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386066 The court quashed the Settlement Commission's order rejecting the petitioner's application due to alleged non-cooperation, emphasizing that the petitioner had made a full disclosure and paid a significant portion of the tax liability. The court found the Commission erred in its treatment of non-cooperation, especially regarding the admissibility of CENVAT credit, jurisdiction issues, and violation of natural justice principles. The court directed the application to be sent back to the adjudicating authority under section 32F(5) of the Act, allowing the petitioner to approach the Settlement Commission in the future. en-us Fri, 01 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Dec 2020 12:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386066 The court quashed the Settlement Commission's order rejecting the petitioner's application due to alleged non-cooperation, emphasizing that the petitioner had made a full disclosure and paid a significant portion of the tax liability. The court found the Commission erred in its treatment of non-cooperation, especially regarding the admissibility of CENVAT credit, jurisdiction issues, and violation of natural justice principles. The court directed the application to be sent back to the adjudicating authority under section 32F(5) of the Act, allowing the petitioner to approach the Settlement Commission in the future. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 01 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386066