TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (10) TMI 112
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... prayer has been made for setting aside order dated 22.6.2005 (Annexure P.5) dismissing the miscellaneous application seeking rectification of the order dated 8.2.2005. 2. Brief facts may first be noticed. The assessee- respondent no.1 is engaged in the manufacturing of Air Handling Units, Chillers and parts thereof falling under tariff heading 84 (84.15) of the Ist schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for brevity ' the 1985 Act') and is also registered with the Central Excise Department. It has been availing Modvat/ Cenvat credit on various inputs and discharging the obligation of excise duty on the final products cleared from the factory. On 11.2.2003, the officers of the Director General Central Excise Intelligence visited....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... found that the assessee- respondent had already paid a sum of Rs. 34,42,867/- against the demand duty amounting to Rs. 27,26,092/- in respect of the demand relating to appropriation of interest. The Settlement Commission noticed letter dated 24.1.2005 sent by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi stating that there was inadvertent error and para 2 of the order appropriating interest of Rs 7,16,775/- infact stood deleted. The Settlement Commission had also found that the assessee- respondent had fully cooperated by making true and full disclosure of their duty liability, accepted and agreed to adjust the entire amount of duty out of the amount paid before issuance of show cause notice. Accordingly, the whole matter was set....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as voluntarily paid by the assessee- respondent no.1 before the issuance of show cause notice and after detection of the same by the staff of Director General Central Excise Intelligence. He has also submitted that the Settlement commission did not have the jurisdiction to delete interest and order its refund. 6. Mr. R. Krishnana, learned counsel for the assessee- respondent no.1 has submitted that the Settlement Commission is fully empowered to grant immunity from prosecution, payment of penalty and interest under Section 32 K of the Act and therefore it cannot be argued that the impugned order suffers from any illegality. According to the learned counsel the Settlement Commissioner does not require to give any detailed reasons in suppo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....interest under the Act, with respect to the case covered by the settlement; Provided that no such immunity shall be granted by the Settlement Commission in cases where the proceedings for the prosecution for any such offence have been instituted before the date of receipt of the application under Section 32 E." 8. A plain reading of the afore-mentioned provisions makes it clear that the Settlement Commission is clothed with ample powers to grant immunity to an assessee from prosecution, whole or in part from imposition of any penalty, fine and interest under the Act with respect to the cases covered by the settlement. It follows that the order granting immunity to the assessee-respondent no.1 is wholly within the para meters of Sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n incorporated in Section 245 D itself. The sole overall limitation upon the Commission thus appears to be that it should act in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The scope of enquiry, whether by the High Court under Article 226 or by this Court under Article 136 is also the same- whether the order of the Commission is contrary to any of the provisions of the Act and if so, apart from ground of bias, fraud and malice which, of course, constitute a separate and independent category, has it prejudiced the petitioner/ appellant. Reference in this behalf may be had to the decision of this Court in R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad and Fatechand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission ( I.T. And W.T.) [1989] 176 ITR 169, which too was an ap....