TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (3) TMI 485
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Commission had asked the Revenue to file affidavit in respect of the sanction of prosecution, Copy of the complaint filed and process if any issued by the Court. The Commission also had informed the Applicant that as per the provisions of Section 32K immunity of any kind as laid down in that Section is not available to the Applicants and in that case whether the Applicant wanted to proceed with the application or not. The learned Advocate submitted that he wanted to proceed with the application because Section 32K gives a clear indication that there is no bar for an application to be admitted in the Settlement Commission even if a criminal case has been filed against the Applicant in a Court of law. Section 32K only envisages that if pros....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot be admitted which is not the case here. The Revenue has no other objection in admitting the application. 4. The Commission has gone through the applications filed by the Applicant, the reports received from the Revenue and heard the Applicant and the Revenue. It is seen that there was a criminal complaint filed in the Hon'ble Court against the Applicants in the Court of law. 5. In the above view of the matter the Commission deliberated as to the admissibility of the application filed by the Applicant. The Commission noticed that the second proviso to Section 32E of Central Excise Act, 1944 mentions that no application shall be entertained by the Settlement Commission under sub-section (1) of Section 32E in cases which are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any Court. That is to say that even if the proceedings for the prosecution have been instituted before the date of receipt of the application under Section 32E, yet the application can be entertained by the Settlement Commission. 7. A reading of Section 32K of Central Excise Act, 1944 would support the above arguments. Section 32K of Central Excise Act, 1944 gives the power to the Settlement Commission to grant immunity from prosecution for any offence under Central Excise Act or the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or under any other Central Act for the time being in force and immunity either wholly or in part from the imposition of any penalty, fine and interest under this Act (Central Excise Act, 1944), with respect to the case cov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tax Act, with effect from 1-6-1987. There was no similar provision existing earlier to the said insertion in the said Act. These provisions under the Direct Tax law was considered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Kothari and Sons and Others v. N. Subramanian, Income-Tax Officer, Central Circle XIII reported in [1992 (196) ITR 082]. In the said decision the Hon'ble High Court has referred to the following decisions : "(7) CIT v. B.N. Bhattachargee - (1979) 118 ITR 461 (S.C.) (8)  Harbans Singh v. Union of India - (1998) 171 ITR 23 (9)  R.I. Chadha v. ITO - (1987) 168 ITR 591. (10) Ashvin Kumar Vadilal Patel v. S. Rajguru - (1987) 165 ITR 583. (11) Ashvin Kumar Vadilal Patel v. P.T. Meh....