TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 1075
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order dated 16.09.2009, read as follows: "8. The advocate for applicant submitted that for manufacturing of 17,400 MTs soaps, as alleged by the Department during the relevant period, the company should have run for about 72 hours per day. At this juncture, the Bench brought to the notice of the advocate that it was not enough to admit the offence based on one by product alone and that too based on documents intercepted by the Department and that the applicant was required to give full particulars of the purchase of raw materials, supplies made, etc., so as to make it a full and true disclosure. These are the parameters relevant for deciding the case and also granting of immunity from penalty and prosecution. The Bench further opin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t amply clear that the Settlement Commission can send the case back to the jurisdictional Central Excise Officer only in cases where the applicant has not co-operated with the Settlement Commission in the proceedings. Nowhere in the impugned order, the Commission has recorded that the petitioners failed to extend any such cooperation to the Commission. Per contra, as pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the Revenue alone has not cooperated with the Commission. The proceedings of the Commission dated 14.02.2005, 09.08.2005 and 21.11.2006 would go to show that despite the requests made by the Commission to produce evidence to substantiate the claim made by the Revenue, the Revenue appears to have not done s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing to 17 pages and has considered six categories of the claim in the show cause notice. He has also given a working sheet on the basis of which the show cause notice has to be reconsidered. It is an admitted fact that the original demand has been scaled down by the Investigating Commissioner based on the verification of the records. The Commissioner (Investigation) also relied on the earlier order passed by the Settlement Commission to determine the duty liability and as to the manner in which the case should be resolved. At no point of time, the Commissioner (Investigation) has stated that the petitioner has not co-operated with the Settlement Commission nor are there material to substantiate the reasons given by the Settlement Commission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....suitably modified or reduced for the purpose of settlement of the case. It is for the Settlement Commission to accept the report or reject the report and pass appropriate orders. 17. The first respondent having sought for a report by the Commissioner (Investigation) has chosen to completely ignore the investigation report in its entirety. This court, therefore, finds that the first respondent has prima facie failed to consider the investigation report on its merits. The Settlement Commission has failed to consider the investigation report submitted by the Commissioner which the Settlement Commission is bound to consider in terms of Section 127C(7) for passing appropriate order under Section 127C(9). Though at one stage the Settleme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation report and come to the conclusion as to what will be the appropriate amount that should be demanded by way of duty and what will be the penalty and interest which should be levied for the purpose of settlement. In this case, this court finds that the Settlement Commission has grossly mislead by itself by failing to consider the investigation report which it had called for and thereby fell into error by accepting the untenable plea of the Revenue that there are inconsistencies in the disclosures. Such finding is based on no evidence and contrary to the records. Merely because there is a huge difference in duty between the show cause notice and the admitted amount, the case of the petitioner cannot be thrown out." 5. The learned Stan....