TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 853
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s an order passed by the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Chennai-1 - the first respondent herein (hereinafter called the Settlement Commission) dated 25.5.2016 passed on an application filed by the petitioner for settlement of their case after a show cause notice dated 22.9.1997 was issued to the petitioner demanding duty to the tune of Rs. 3,28,27,082/- under Section 72(1)(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter called the Act) and proposing to levy penalty under Section 112 of the Act. 3. The petitioner filed an application before the Settlement Commission on 31.8.2005 and by then, their name stood changed as M/s.Standard Shoe Sole & Mould (India) Limited. In the work sheet appended to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yment and subsequently approached this Court by filing W.P.No.46471 of 2006, in which, a conditional order was granted on 30.11.2006 and ultimately, it appears that the amount was paid in instalments. 6. The Settlement Commission heard the application finally on 5.4.2016 and passed the impugned final order dated 25.5.2016 settling the petitioner's case by arriving at the customs duty payable at Rs. 46,52,571/- and after giving credit to Rs. 10,27,099/- for the capital goods on the depreciated value, the petitioner was directed to remit the remaining amount with regard to the raw material. That apart, immunity from payment of interest under Section 127H of the Act was granted and an amount of Rs. 50,000/- alone was imposed as penalty. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounsel appearing for the respondents on the above submissions. 10. From the record of the proceedings, it is seen that at no point of time, the Department conceded that there is no liability towards duty on raw material. In fact, it is the petitioner, which did not admit any liability. But, the show cause notice, which led to the filing of the application before the Settlement Commission, had quantified duty on raw material. Therefore, it has to be seen as to how the Settlement Commission dealt with the matter. 11. The Settlement Commission took note of the submissions of the Commissioner at the time of personal hearing wherein it was contended that the petitioner had not informed the stoppage of production to the Department as well as th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot admit any liability on the raw materials on the ground that they were not fit for consumption and merit to be destroyed and the duty remitted. The case was first heard by the Commission on 9.11.2005 and certain directions were issued to the Department on the applicant's claim. Some correspondence took place and the case was heard by the Commission on 12.1.2006 and 21.2.2006." 14. That apart, the submissions made on either side with regard to the duty demanded on raw material was considered in detail and the Settlement Commission, in paragraph 16.8, recorded a finding that remission of duty will arise only in cases where the goods have been lost or destroyed at the time before clearance, that in the instant case, the goods were never....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t they are entitled to challenge only the portion of the order with regard to the duty demanded on raw material. This piecemeal challenge to the order of the Settlement Commission on the grounds raised by the petitioner is not tenable. 18. So far as the findings of fact recorded by the Commission or questions of fact are concerned, the same is not open for examination either by the High Court or by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Challenge to the order of the Settlement Commission on those grounds was rejected by the Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Vs. Rohan Anirudha Soelekar [reported in (2013) 288 ELT 253]. 19. In Singhvi Reconditioners Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI [reported in (2010) 251 ELT 3], the Hon'ble Supreme Court....