2015 (11) TMI 1163

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Advocate And Mrs. Santa Mitra, Advocate ORDER The Court: In this case four show-cause notices were dealt with by the Settlement Commission at an earlier point of time. This case arises out of an application made by the writ petitioner under Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with regard to the fifth show-cause notice. It appears that the Settlement Commission in its order dated....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... imposed on M/s. Rohit Ferro Tech Limited. But it failed to appreciate that this did not prevent Rohit Ferro Tech Limited from approaching the Settlement Commission in a second case unless the penalty was inflicted on them, on their making a Section 32E application for settlement and that the ground of imposition of that penalty was concealment of particulars of duty liability. Section 32E e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... petitioner. Just because a penalty is imposed on a show-cause notice the writ petitioner's application before the Commission was not entertained. In that view of the matter, I direct the Settlement Commission to reconsider its order dated 28th March 2014 in the light of the above observations and if it is found that the penalty has not been imposed on the writ petitioner in an application for ....