TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 411
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....being aggrieved by the said part of the order has invoked writ jurisdiction of this court. The Facts : 2. The facts giving rise to the present petition in nutshell are as under : The Petitioners are 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), engaged in the manufacture of Vegetable extracts U/Chapter 13 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (CETA, 1985 for short). 3. The Petitioners being 100% EOU are required to obtain permission from Development Commissioner for clearing their goods to Domestic Tariff Area (DTA). 4. The Petitioners are required to pay Excise duty in the case of DTA clearance as per Section 3 of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Customs Act and in any other law for the time being in force. The goods cleared by the Petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 33,96,718/- with interest u/s. 11AB together with equal penalty u/s. 11AC of the Act. In addition to this personal penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs was imposed on the Managing Director u/r. 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 8. The Petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and pending the decision of the appeal, the petitioners approached for Settlement of the case before the Settlement Commission raising various grounds mentioned therein. One of the contentions of the Petitioners was that considering the Notification 21/2002-Cus. they were liable to pay Customs duty @ 15% only and that it was erroneously calculated and imposed @ 30%. It was urged that the duty liability taking cum duty price benefit @ 15% works out to R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 57,46,968.49 (vii) SAD @ 4% Rs. 2,29,878.74 12. The Petitioner based on the above calculations reiterates that the correct amount of duty payable by invoking cum duty would be Rs. 21,65,860.17 and not as demanded in the impugned order. In support of his Submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of C.C.E., Delhi v. Maruti Udyog - 2002 (141) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) Per Contra : 13. Mr. Pardeshi, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-Revenue submits that the cum duty principle cannot be allowed to be invoked since the subject goods were removed by the Petitioner clandestinely without payment of duty. In other words, goods removed did not carry incidence of duty. He further....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a, reported in 1996 (84) E.L.T. 164 (S.C.) and Jyotindrasinghji v. S.I. Tripathi - AIR 1993 SC 1991 wherein the Apex Court held that the entire proceedings before the Settlement Commission were in the form of package deal and that the writ court has a limited jurisdiction while examining the legality of the order of Settlement Commission. According to him, the court could only examine whether the Settlement Commission has followed procedure which was legal and whether the order is contrary to any of the provisions of the Act. Beyond this the High Court has no jurisdiction. 16. Mr. Pardeshi further submits that the aforesaid judgments are followed by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Cypromet Ltd. v. Union of India - 2010 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... provisions of Rule 5(3) of the Valuation Rules which are part of the Act. 19. In the present case core issue raised by the Petitioner based on various provisions of the Central Excise and Customs Act were brushed aside by the Settlement Commission by three line observations quoted in Para 9 above. In the above manner, the submissions made by the Petitioner were rejected by the Settlement Commission without seconding reasons much less cogent reasons. 20. In State ofWest Bengalv. Atul Krishna Shaw & Anr. - AIR 1990 (S.C.) 2205, this Court observed that "giving of reasons is an essential element of administration of justice. A right to reason is, therefore, an indispensable part of sound system of judicial review." 21. In St....