TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 728
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ating thereto. 2. The petitioner company proudly flaunts that it had dodged paying the duty leviable in a previous case whereupon it was slapped with a notice under Section 11 of the Act and it carried the matter before the Settlement Commission under Section 32E of the Act. Such provision permits an assessee, who has, inter alia, been served a show-cause notice for recovery of duty by a central excise officer, to approach the Settlement Commission to have the case settled by indicating the additional amount of excise duty accepted by the assessee to be payable and by furnishing such other particulars as may be relevant. 3. Upon an assessee carrying a matter before the Settlement Commission, it is not automatic that the applicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gether with the additional duty in excess of Rs. 33 lakh. In imposing the penalty on the assessee, the Settlement Commission accepted or is deemed to have found as a matter of fact that the assessee had not deposited or disclosed the quantum of excise duty payable. There is a discretion available to the Settlement Commission and it is possible in an appropriate case for the entire quantum of penalty to be waived, if the Settlement Commission feels that it was beyond the control of the assessee to ascertain the quantum of duty payable or that there was no attempt at concealment in course of originally depositing the quantum of duty. 6. The moment the Settlement Commission imposes any penalty on an assessee approaching it under Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rse of the transaction. In the Settlement Commission discovering that the additional quantum of duty payable by this petitioner company was in excess of Rs. 33 lakh, there was a finding that there was underpayment of duty by this petitioner to such extent. In the Settlement Commission imposing a penalty of Rs. 5 lakh on this petitioner company, it found as a matter of fact that the petitioner company had concealed the quantum of duty payable in respect of the transaction. An element of mens rea was fastened to this petitioner company upon the order of the Settlement Commission being passed on January 4, 2011. 9. Section 32-O of the said Act permits subsequent applications for settlement being made, provided the assessee has not been p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Commission imposes any fine on such assessee. 12. It cannot be lost sight of that this petitioner company had previously approached the Settlement Commission after receiving a notice of demand. In this petitioner company accepting a quantum of the amount of additional duty as demanded to be payable, it accepted and acknowledged that it had failed to pay the duty that it was originally obliged to. It is possible in a particular case that there may be a bona fide reason for not paying the appropriate quantum of duty, but the adjudication on the reasons for not tendering the appropriate duty is conducted by the Settlement Commission. If the Settlement Commission is of the opinion that, despite the exercise of due diligence and for reason....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or for what purpose the penalty had been imposed on the writ petitioner. It was in such circumstances, that the order required the Settlement Commission to reconsider the matter. 15. The earlier order passed by the Settlement Commission in that case is not quoted in the relevant order. It is, thus, not possible to appreciate the circumstances in which the order dated August 24, 2014 in W.P. 392 of 2014 came to be made. 16. In the present case, the order of the Settlement Commission on the previous occasion is lucid and leaves no room for doubt. The order of January 4, 2011 found that the petitioner company was liable to the extent of Rs. 33,44,227/- on account of additional duty. Such amount was required to be appropriated from ....