TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1032
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplication for hearing. At that stage, the Commission's order (as communicated to the petitioner on 16.04.2015) was as follows:- "I am directed to communicate that the Hon'ble Bench has allowed the application filed by the above mentioned applicant to be proceeded with in terms of sub-section(1)of section 32F of the Central Excise Act 1944, as the conditions laid down under section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944, subject to the condition that the applicant show at the time of final hearing that they fulfill the conditions of section 32 E of the Central Excise Act, 1944." 3. Thereafter, considering the submissions of the parties and the material on record, it rejected the Settlement Application. The rationale for rejection of the Settlement Application inter alia given by the Commission is as follows:- "17. The Bench has gone through the application filed and considered the rival submissions made orally as well as in writing both by the applicant and the Revenue. The Bench observed that this is a case of clandestine clearance of cast iron products by suppressing the production and also mis-declaring their weight; also of suppression of transaction value of the finished good....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... will not be reflected in their balance sheet. The loading in the price of M/s. Manjeet Traders in proportion to increase in weight is prime facie correct. The applicant contention, in this regard, is unacceptable. 18. The applicant during the hearing has contended that if they were granted cum-duty price benefit, their duty liability will get reduced to 55.56 lakhs from the total duty demand of Rs. 80.52 lakhs. Thus, they have claimed that they are entitled to cum duty price benefit of Rs. 24.96 lakhs. It may be mentioned that the duty rate on cast iron products ranged from 8.24% to 12.36% and majority of the clearances were made when the rate of duty was 10.3%. On a demand of Rs. 80.52 lakhs, the cum duty price benefit when the rate of duty is 10.3% (in the case of 85% clearance) cannot exceed rupees nine lakhs. Even at the highest rate of 12.36% it would not be more than 10 lakhs. This clearly shows that the applicant has not calculated their duty liability correctly and has tried to mislead the Commission by submitting wrong and incorrect claims. 19. The Bench observed that the applicant has only accepted about 40% of their duty liability and has contested the evidence collec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant has not cooperated with the CCESC in the proceedings before it. It can then send the matter back to the Central Excise Officer having jurisdiction who can then proceed to dispose of the case in terms of the provisions of the CE Act as if no application seeking settlement had been made. None of the provisions in Chapter 5 of the CE Act dealing with the „settlement of cases' envisages the CCESC sending the matter for adjudication to the Central Excise Officer because of the differences between the applicant on the one hand and the Department on the other. In other words unless the applicant before it has not stated the true and full particulars or fails to cooperate with it, the CCESC cannot decline to examine the application on the ground that there is difference between the applicant and the Department on an issue arising from the application." 5. This Court is of the opinion, that the petitioner's submissions with respect to the lack of jurisdiction or authority of the Commission to reject the application after entertaining it under Section 32E are insubstantial. The rejection of an application is possible at both stages - either at the stage of admission [Section 32E] ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplication can be thrown out. The position is no different under Section 32E(1) of the Central Excise Act even after the amendment made w.e.f. 01.06.2007. The requirement continues to be that the application shall contain a full and true disclosure of the duty liability which has not been disclosed before the Central Excise Officer and the manner in which such liability was derived. It is true that on and after 01.06.2007 the Settlement Commission need not call for a report from the Commissioner before the settlement application is allowed to be proceeded with. However, the requirement that the settlement application shall contain a full and true disclosure continues to remain in the statue and it is, therefore, the duty of the Settlement Commission to examine this aspect by itself on the basis of explanation provided by the applicant. 49.The other principle which has been set down in several judgments of this Court is that the Settlement Commission is not a substitute for adjudication proceedings before the Central Excise authorities and where complex issues of fact and law are involved for which a detailed inquiry is necessary, settlement proceedings cannot act as a proper subst....