https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286429 The applications filed by the applicant and co-applicant were rejected as not maintainable by the Settlement Commission. The rejection was due to the failure to meet the eligibility criteria under Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as the applicants did not accept any additional duty liability. The Bench found the case involved fraudulent transactions and lacked a bona fide nature, leading to the dismissal of the settlement applications without prejudice to other potential legal actions against the applicants. en-us Mon, 21 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Feb 2020 10:40:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286429 The applications filed by the applicant and co-applicant were rejected as not maintainable by the Settlement Commission. The rejection was due to the failure to meet the eligibility criteria under Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as the applicants did not accept any additional duty liability. The Bench found the case involved fraudulent transactions and lacked a bona fide nature, leading to the dismissal of the settlement applications without prejudice to other potential legal actions against the applicants. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 21 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286429