TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 1348
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J (Oral) 1. Common question which arises in these petitions is whether the rejection of the petitioner's request to the Settlement Commission to adjudicate upon the show cause notice issued to them on 04.12.2015 as a proceeding connected with the applications made upon the issuance of show cause notices dated 16.01.2015 and whether directions to entertain them are to be issued. 2. Brief facts necessary for decision in these petitions are that searches were conducted in the premises of the petitioners in July, 2014 during the course of which statements of various individuals were recorded. Similar searches were conducted in the residential premises of the proprietors of some of the applicant company/concerns and further....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rat in the case of Mahendra Petrochemical Ltd. Vs Union of India - 2010 (257) ELT 412 (Guj). 3. The Settlement Commission ruled that the applications as filed could not be entertained and that each of the present petitioners should have filed two applications before the Commission. The reasoning of the Settlement Commission is as under: "10. We have perused the case records including the submissions made by the the Ld. Advocates during the hearing held on 08.07.2016. We find that the Special Bench in the case of M/s. Yousuff Kasim Sait vide Special Bench Order No. 1/2003 (Cus) dated 30.05.2003, though noting that Section 127B(1) by implication calls for separate application for each case, but placing reliance on the wordings used in the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e also observe that in the case of Mahindra Petro Chemicals Ltd. Vs.Union of India, the issue before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court was whether an application can be maintained where no Bill of Entry was filed. The issue relating to filing of composite application for more than one SCN was not before the Hori'ble High Court. Regarding the case of Mis. Mangala Ispat (Jaipur) Ltd. settled by the Principal Bench of the Settlement Commission vide Order No. F-2245-50/CE/15-SC(PB), it is true that the Principal Bench has admitted and settled the case where a single application was filed involving more than one SCNs. The Bench in its order has not discussed the reasons for entertaining such an application and nor has dwelt on this subject....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioners relied upon the following extract of the second show cause notice in that regard: "15. The Show Cause Notice in respect of goods seized at the premises Door Deco Industries has already been issued vide SCN C. No. IV(Hqrs.Prev.)Int/19/5/2014 dated 16.01.2015." 6. It is urged on the strength of the decision of the Special Bench in Yousuff Kasim Sait (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in Mahendra Petrochemical Ltd.(supra) that substance of dispute or "lis" before the Settlement Commission was one and the same and that the insistence that separate applications should be filed in the circumstances was unjustified. 7. Mr. Rai, the learned counsel for the Revenue urged that this Court should not entertain these proceedings. He stated th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Procedure Code and therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant in regard to the applicability of Section 219 of Cr.P.C. is negatived by this Court. Admittedly no criminal cases were filed against the appellant by the second respondent. Only if criminal cases were filed by the second respondent, the second respondent may seek in aid of Section 219 of Cr.P.C. Hence the application of Section of 219 Cr. P.C. for clubbing of three show cause notices is untenable. Even if criminal cases are filed for the offences committed then there is no embargo in law for separate trial of each offence as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court AIR 1965 SUPREME COURT 1248." 8. Relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ise Officer has been received by the applicant; (c) the additional amount of duty accepted by the applicant in his application exceeds three lakh rupees; and (d) the applicant has paid the additional amount of excise duty accepted by him along with interest due under [section 11AA]" 10. As is evident "case" means a proceeding in the Act or any other Act for the levy, assessment and collection of excise duty - (this provision has been incorporated for reference in the relevant provision of Customs Act), pending before an adjudicating authority before which the application under Section 32E is made. The decision in Optigrab International (supra) is premised upon the fact that separate show cause notices, that involved adjudication by dif....