https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30888 The court set aside the second respondent's order and remanded the matter for a comprehensive adjudication. The petitioners' applications were rejected based on inadequate reasons, as the Settlement Commission has the authority to order investigations under Section 32(6) and (7) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court criticized the second respondent for not thoroughly examining the issues and failing to adhere to legal principles and procedural fairness. The judgment highlighted the Commission's duty to address complexities and ensure justice, leading to the decision in favor of the petitioners. en-us Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30888 The court set aside the second respondent's order and remanded the matter for a comprehensive adjudication. The petitioners' applications were rejected based on inadequate reasons, as the Settlement Commission has the authority to order investigations under Section 32(6) and (7) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court criticized the second respondent for not thoroughly examining the issues and failing to adhere to legal principles and procedural fairness. The judgment highlighted the Commission's duty to address complexities and ensure justice, leading to the decision in favor of the petitioners. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30888