2016 (8) TMI 705

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Ladda, Advocate for the Respondents. JUDGMENT: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of learned advocates for the parties. 2. The petitioners assail order dated 16-02-2015 passed by respondent No. 2 thereby negativing application filed by petitioners. The Settlement Commissioner passed order invoking its power under section 32-F(5) of the Central Excise A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(ten) days time was given to the parties to make the submissions. Subsequent to the hearing being conducted, respondents filed additional documents with its letters dated 08-12-2014, 13-12-2014, 27-01-2015 and 05-02-2015 and made submissions thereafter also. The petitioners were not put notice about said letters being filed. The petitioners on 05-11-2014 had specifically filed application and ther....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., they were liable to pay duty. After submissions of subsequent documents, in fact, the amount of duty was reduced from Rs. 1, 28,00, 511/- to Rs. 1,20,00,000/-. In fact, the petitioners are benefited. Learned counsel for respondents relies on the Section 32-J of the Excise Act to contend that petitioners are not entitled for copies of the reports. Such an order of the Settlement Commissioner is n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and 05-02-2015. These letters were much subsequent to the date of hearing conducted by Settlement Commissioner. The copies of said letters/documents were also never provided to the petitioners. The petitioners had filed specific application seeking documents. Provisions of Section 32-J of the Excise Act clearly entitles the applicant to provide certified copies of any such report or part thereof.....