TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 707
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....% EOU engaged in the manufacture of Terry Towels. An investigation into the evasion of taxes and misuse of the scheme of EOU during the period from March 2000 to October 2003 and the discharge of duty liability during the de-bonding of the unit culminated in the issue of Show Cause Notice in C.No.V/63/15/39/2005-Adjn dated 06.01.2006 and a corrigendum in C.No.V/63/15/39/2005-Adjn dated 20.11.2006 demanding a duty amount of Rs. 23,96,11,012/-. 2. The petitioner had approached the Settlement Commission for settlement of disputes raised in the above Show Cause Notice under Section 32 E of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The case came to be dismissed at admission stage for want of full and true disclosure vide order dated 25.01.2008. The Petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e learned Settlement Commission. Writ Petition No 9403 & 9984 of 2010 were dismissed by this Court by a common order dated 30.06.2011 which was brought to the notice of this Court by the respondents. 5. The petitioner contends that the orders are ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and left with no other alternative remedy they are forced to approach this Court in a Writ Petition. On perusal of the impugned orders, it is seen that after considering the disclosures and defence of the petitioner some portions of the demand proposals were dropped and most portions of the allegations in the Show Cause Notice were sustained. Accordingly, the settlement was arrived in the impugned order 03/2010-CE dated 08.06.2010. A nominal penalty was imposed and full....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saurashtra Kutch stock exchange Ltd 2008 (230) ELT 385 (SC) observed that a patent error, manifest and self evident error which does not require elaborate discussions of evidence and arguments to establish it, can be said to be an error apparent on the face of records. 7. Therefore, and in view of the scheme of the settlement commission, the plea of the petitioners that they had pointed out certain finding of the settlement Commission and the apparent errors striking a discordant note in the order of the Commission is not tenable. I say so because the settlement commission scheme is a voluntary mode/option for settlement of the disputes. It shuts the rigours of the Adjudication proceedings for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scope for the applicant to question the wisdom of the Settlement Commission in arriving at its judgement particularly when substantial evidences of evasion of taxes warranting penalties and prosecution are brought before it. 9. In the instant case, the original demand in the Show Cause Notice was brought down/ reduced by the Commission. In its discretion, the consequences of penalty was substantially reduced. Full waiver from prosecution to the applicants and co-applicants were granted, though conditionally. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the revenue is also aggrieved by the Order of Settlement though they choose to accept the Order. It is not open for the petitioner to opt for remedy under the settlement commission and contest its....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Commission and in this Writ Petition pertains to the demand of Rs. 50,41,149/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Forty One Thousad One Hundred and Forty Nine only) as set out in Annexure VI of the SCN. The demand was made against the diversion of power manufactured out of the imported duty free coal under the EOU scheme to other DTA Units which is a serious offence under the law carrying penal consequences besides causing substantial loss of revenue to the exchequer. The appropriate duty becomes payable when the power produced by the duty free coal imported under the EOU Scheme is diverted to DTA Units. And the merit in the demand can not be disputed. Therefore, the petitioner had contested the demand on the ground of limitation. But the goods imported u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....manufactured under bond availing the benefits of the EOU Scheme had to be cleared for exports without illegitimately availing any export incentives/benefits like DEPB or Draw Back. But the finished goods under question were exported under claim of DEPB & Drawback which is not permissible under the EOU Scheme under the EXIM Policy. A huge loss of revenue to the exchequer on account of availing both the EOU Scheme and DEPB/Drawback incentives on the same goods is noticed. Therefore, the demand is raised on the EOU manufactured goods that were de-bonded and exported availing export benefits. Rightly, the issue was concluded in favour of revenue by the Settlement Commission. But the petitioner herein is aggrieved by the conclusion and had plea....