https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393631 Where the same interest liability question went to both maintainability and the merits, the Madras High Court held that the Settlement Commission should have decided it by a reasoned order before rejecting the settlement applications. Because the applications had already been allowed to proceed to final hearing and the applicants were willing to pay the interest component, the rejection for non-maintainability was set aside. The matters were restored to the Settlement Commission for fresh consideration after payment of interest, with penalty and prosecution left to be decided on merits. en-us Mon, 30 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Mar 2020 12:53:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393631 Where the same interest liability question went to both maintainability and the merits, the Madras High Court held that the Settlement Commission should have decided it by a reasoned order before rejecting the settlement applications. Because the applications had already been allowed to proceed to final hearing and the applicants were willing to pay the interest component, the rejection for non-maintainability was set aside. The matters were restored to the Settlement Commission for fresh consideration after payment of interest, with penalty and prosecution left to be decided on merits. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 30 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393631