2013 (10) TMI 353

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....icle 226 of the Constitution of India is the common order dated 12 December 2011 of the Settlement Commission under Section 32F of the Central Excise Act,1944 ( "the Act"). 3) Since we propose to set aside the impugned order only on the ground of failure to grant a personal hearing with liberty to the Settlement Commission to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner, it is not necessary to set out the facts in detail. Suffice to state that the petitioner in Writ Petition No.4970 of 2013 is the applicant before the Settlement Commission to whom a show cause notice has been issued demanding excise duty while the petitioner in Writ Petition No.4971 of 2013 is the coapplicant before Settlement Commission to whom a show cause notice ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....jarat) and the decision of the Delhi High Court in J. R. B. Engineering Works vs. Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commissioner (275) E.L.T. 179 (Delhi). 6) We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. We find that at first blush the submissions of the learned Counsel for the respondentrevenue that the impugned orders of the Settlement Commission calls for no interference as condition precedent for making an application under Section 32E of the Act is not satisfied appears attractive. Even though the requirements of Section 32E of the Act as provided in the first proviso thereto are threshold requirements for making an application for settlement yet in the present facts, the rejection of the application on the above basis with....