2016 (6) TMI 14

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the orders dated 9th June, 2014, 3rd September, 2014 and 16th November, 2015, passed by the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission ('CCESC') under Section 32F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ('CE Act') dismissing the settlement application filed by the Petitioner under Section 32E of the CE Act.   2. A search took placed in the premises of one Mr. Pawan Goel on 22nd December, 2010 as a result of which certain books and registers were seized. The statement of Mr Goel was also recorded. Consequent thereto the Petitioner's premises were searched on 19th January, 2011. This resulted in a show cause notice ('SCN') issued to the Petitioner by the Department on 8th July, 2011, raising a demand of Rs. 6....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r then filed an application on 21st April, 2014 before the CCESC seeking to bring on record the aforementioned order dated 7th April, 2014 passed by the ITSC. On 9th June, 2014, the CCESC passed a final order rejecting the first application of the Petitioner seeking settlement under the CE Act. The CCESC sent the matter back to the adjudicating authority in terms of Section 32F(5) of the Act. The CCESC in the said order dated 9th June 2014 observed that the diary maintained by Mr. Rai was not produced before the Department during investigation and the existence of such diary had been brought to the notice of the CCESC only at the stage of hearing. Since there was no meeting ground between the Petitioner and the stand of the Department, the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., 2015, the CCESC dismissed the Petitioner's application. It, however, corrected the sentence in its order dated 3rd September, 2014 to remove the words to the effect that Mr. Rai's diary was not on the record of the CCESC. However, the CCESC was of the view that the above correction did not change the final outcome in regard to both the first and the second application of the Petitioner. 11. Mr. Balbir Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner referred to Section 32F of the CE Act as well as Section 32L thereof and submitted that none of the grounds on which the application could be rejected by the CCESC exist in the present case. Relying on the decisions in SSF Plastics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 2015 (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2O of the CE Act and in particular Section 32-O (1) (iii) of the CE Act. In any event this part of the order has not been questioned by the Department and the Court need not examine it further. 14. The fact of the matter is that for rejection of an application made to it there are only a few grounds available to the CCESC. Under Section 32F (1) of the CE Act, the CCESC may reject an application even at the preliminary stage if it is of the view that a full and true disclosure has not been made of the material facts by the Petitioner. If, however, the CCESC decides to proceed with the application then the grounds on which it can decline to entertain the application, as stated in Section 32-L of the CE Act, is where the CCESC is of the opi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lement application stating that it could not examine the case without going into a 'lot of details of the dispute'. The High Court while disapproving the order of the CCESC observed as under: "10. If such an approach is adopted, the very purpose of setting up a Commission and enabling settlement of disputes expeditiously and promptly is defeated. That is to encourage settlement of claims which are long overdue and by pendency of which larger public interest cannot be sub-served. Delay in recovery of taxes harms the National economy and one need not over-emphasize this aspect." 16. In the present case, the Court finds that both in the order dated 9th June, 2014, rejecting the first application and the subsequent order dated 3rd....