https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34174 The substituted settlement regime under section 32F of the Central Excise Act requires settlement amounts to be paid within the prescribed time, unlike the earlier provision that expressly allowed instalments. The Bombay High Court noted that sections 32M and 32N reinforce the finality of Settlement Commission orders and the statutory mode of recovery, so writ jurisdiction could not be used to confer a facility the statute had removed. Circulars could not override the Act or the quasi-judicial settlement order. The Court therefore found no implied power to grant instalments and declined interference with the order. en-us Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34174 The substituted settlement regime under section 32F of the Central Excise Act requires settlement amounts to be paid within the prescribed time, unlike the earlier provision that expressly allowed instalments. The Bombay High Court noted that sections 32M and 32N reinforce the finality of Settlement Commission orders and the statutory mode of recovery, so writ jurisdiction could not be used to confer a facility the statute had removed. Circulars could not override the Act or the quasi-judicial settlement order. The Court therefore found no implied power to grant instalments and declined interference with the order. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34174