TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (11) TMI 12
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich disclosure was essential for initiating any proceedings under Section 32F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He con tended that the majority order passed by the other two members of the Commission had failed to address itself to the requirement of such a disclosure neglecting in the process the settled legal position that a full and true disclosure alone could constitute a basis for assumption of jurisdiction by the Commission under the Act. He urged that inasmuch as the Commission had, by majority, decided to proceed with the application filed by the respondent applicants without re cording a specific finding to the effect that the applications made a full and true disclosure of their liability, it had fallen in an error that required to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat required to be looked into. 4. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made .at the bar and perused the order under challenge. The Commission has, by the impugned order, simply admitted the applications filed by the respondents. That order, as noticed earlier, is by majority and takes a view different from the one taken by the Chairman of the Commission. The minority judgment authored by the Chairman no doubt rejects the applications on the ground that the applicants had not made a full and true disclosure of their liability as required under section 32E(1) of the Act. The majority opinion has however left that issue open on the ground that neither side has conclusively proved its version regarding the filing of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d answered by the Commission while passing a final order on the applications filed before it. The Revenue shall be free to urge that the applicants are not entitled to any relief as the requirement of a full and true disclosure stipulated under Section 32E remains unsatisfied. 6. In Om Prakash Mittal's case (supra) upon which the petitioner places reliance, the Supreme Court was examining the validity of an order of settlement passed by the Income-tax Settlement Commission, Calcutta under Section 245D(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. After noticing the provisions Of Section 245C of the said Act which provisions are in pan materia with the provisions of Section 32C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, their lordships observed as under: "The fou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he learned counsel, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Commission would be wholly uncalled for. 8. We regret our inability to accept that line of reasoning. it is true that the foundation for settlement is an application from the assessee in which the assessee must make a full and true disclosure as required under the provision of Section 245C of the Income-tax Act or Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, but it is equally true that the requirement of a full and true disclosure need not be examined and authoritatively determined at the threshold of any proceedings initiated before the Commission under Chapter V. There may be cases where it is possible for the Commission to record a finding that the disclosure made in the application is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s examining whether the maintainability of an application could be re-opened once an order lawfully deciding that aspect had been passed by the Commission and accepted by the parties. The argument urged before the Court was that a party belatedly challenging the said order was estopped from doing so. The Court accepted that submission on the principle of Waiver and Estoppel in the following words: "Mr. Pal has rightly said in this context that as question of entertainability and maintainability of the application has been lawfully decided and accepted by the parties without any demur, this court will not accept the contention of the Revenue now. In my opinion this question of jurisdiction could have been raised immediately after the decisi....