TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (1) TMI 387
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er shall deposit Rs.1 lakh to the credit of the second respondent Commissioner of Central Excise. In the second writ petition, stay was granted on condition that the petitioner shall deposit Rs.50,000/- to the credit of the second respondent. The interim orders have also been complied with. Aggrieved by the orders passed by this court, the second respondent, Commissioner of Central Excise had filed two vacate stay applications in M.P.(MD)Nos.2 and 2 of 2009 together with supporting affidavit, dated 1.8.2009. They have also filed a typed set of papers containing documents in support of their averments. When the two vacate stay applications came up for hearing, with the consent of parties, both writ petitions were taken up for hearing. 3.It is the stand of the petitioners that they are the Public Limited Company and are having their factory to manufacture Kraft papers. It is registered under the Central Excise Act within the second respondent's jurisdiction. They were also filing monthly Returns before the 6th respondent Superintendent of Central Excise at Tirumangalam. On 28.1.2005, the petitioner's factory premises was searched by the Officers of the Directorate General o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4/- before 30.6.2007. The case was posted for hearing on 22.11.2007. The Settlement Commission had admitted the application in respect of the petitioner as well as the co- applicant by an order, dated 17.12.2007. By the said order, the company had also paid the balance re-quantified amount which worked out to Rs.7,59,859/-. It had paid the total duty of Rs.21,27,803/-. A representation, dated 5.2.2008 was also filed along with an order of the BIFR declaring the company as a sick company. The company had also undertaken to discharge the duty amount of Rs.32,878/- in respect of seized goods. Hence the company had paid the entire amount. 6.However, the Settlement Commission by its final order, dated 28.2.2008 settled the case on condition that duty liability for an unaccounted clearance was settled at Rs.21,13,836/- against which the petitioner had already paid Rs.21,27,803/-. The seized goods should also be released by the appropriate authority on payment of appropriate duty of Rs.32,878/-, a part of which had already been paid. The petitioners were also granted immunity in excess of 10% simple interest per annum on the duty liability from the date it became payable till th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was claimed that the Settlement Commission had taken note of the entirety of facts and also found at the first instance that the petitioner did not make true and full disclosure. It is also noted by the division bench regarding the waiver of interest. The full disclosure of admitted liability was made only during the course of the proceedings. Therefore, the Commission recorded that it is the case of violation of law and evasion of duty by suppression of production and clandestine removal of unaccounted goods by using parallel set of invoices and realization of sale proceeds by cash which were willfully and systematically organized by the petitioner. Therefore, there was no scope for full immunity from imposition of penalty. It was claimed that the petitioners had admitted the unaccounted production and clandestine removal of goods and had admitted the duty liability. Even the Settlement Commission has got discretionary power relating to waiver of penalty or fine either wholly or partly. Therefore, having approached the Settlement Commission, the petitioner cannot come to this court for a further relief. It was also pointed out that when the petitioner had produced the order of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Arora Fibres Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 2009 (243) E.L.T. 327 (Bom.) to contend that the Settlement Commission was not empowered to impose penalty without complying with the statutory requirement. 15.Per contra, Mr.S.Annamalai, learned counsel for the respondents Department referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sanghvi Reconditioners Private Limited Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2010 (2) SCC 733, wherein the Supreme Court considered the similar provisions under the Customs Act and held in paragraphs 36 and 37 as follows: "36.We also find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the Revenue that having observed that the appellant had not made a full and true disclosure, their application should have been rejected by the Settlement Commission on that count itself and no relief should have been granted to the appellant. However, in view of the fact that order dated 8.2.2001 passed by the Settlement Commission allowing the application of the appellant to be proceeded was not challenged by the Commissioner nor such a plea was urged by the Revenue before the High Court or in their reply to the present appeal, we find it di....