TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 741
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the Settlement Commission ) in applications filed by the petitioner for settlement of their case arising out of a show cause notice, dated 06.03.2007, issued by the first respondent to the petitioner, who is one among the sixteen co-noticees. 3. The petitioner is a manufacturer of leather goods falling under Chapter 42 of the Central Excise Tariff. On receiving information that the petitioner is manufacturing goods and removing without payment of duty and availing SSI exemption and manipulating the records of the sister concern and job workers, conducted investigation and issued sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have been done by the petitioner/applicant and when the applicant accepted the department's stand that the three job workers do not have any facility to stitch and paste and the final stitching has been done at the premises of the applicant, they have to discharge the duty liability. They also objected that there is no true and full disclosure and the applicant has indulged in manipulation/burning of documents which is a serious offence and submitted documents before the Settlement Commission to prove such contention. However, this allegation was rebutted by the counsel, who appeared for the applicant. After considering all the aspects, the Settlement Commission, by an elaborate order, has settled the case. 6. The learned counsel for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the matter to the Settlement Commission only for considering of such aspect. 9. From a reading of paragraph 25 of the impugned order, it is seen that the Settlement Commission has not rendered any finding, accepting the stand of the petitioner that activity done by it, does not amount to manufacture. In fact, it was on an assumption that assuming the activity is not manufacture, what would be the duty liability. Therefore, the direction issued to the Revenue by the Settlement Commission at best could be considered, as an information, the Commission wanted to know with regard to the impact of duty assuming that the activity done by the petitioner, did not amount to manufacture. On a reading of the order passed by the Settlement Commission, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of redemption of the seized goods on payment of redemption of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- with simple interest and settling the interest at 10% (simple interest), and granting immunity from prosecution to the applicant and co-applicants. 11. The Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brij Lal & Ors., vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Civil Appeal Nos.516-527 of 2004, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 1 held that the order of Settlement Commission under Section 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act shall be final and conclusive. In UOI vs. Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd., reported in 2011 (265) ELT 3 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an order passed by the Settlement Commission could be interfered with only if the said orde....