TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 1825
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he third respondent wherein a sum of Rs. 1,21,38,364/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty One Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Four Only) was demanded as duty evaded paid by the Petitioner during the period 2000-2003. The notice also sought to deny SSI exemption for the period 2003-2004. In the SCN the department alleged clandestine removal of goods. 3. The Petitioner was also called upon to show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 22 lakhs already paid by the petitioner should not be adjusted towards the duty proposed to be demanded. The notice also called upon the Managing Director of the petitioner to show cause why penalty under Central Excise Rules, 2001 read with Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (CEA, 1944) and Rul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 2nd respondent after the receipt of the report of the Commissioner(Investigation) passed the impugned order without discussing the findings contained in the said report. The impugned order refers to the report given by the Commissioner(Investigation) in para 7 which reads as under:- "The case was once again heard on 05.04.2007. The Revenue and Applicant stuck to their stand. In view of the irreconcilable positions taken by the rival parties to the dispute, it was decided by the Bench, that the case would be admitted and the matter referred to Commissioner (Investigation) to go into the issue and submit his report to the Bench. The decision was pronounced at the time of hearing itself. In pursuance of the same, investigation was t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se. I have also considered the arguments advanced on either side. The counter filed by the deals with the merits of the case without dealing with the reason as to why the report of the Commissioner (Investigation) cannot be relied upon. 18. Scope for interference against the orders passed by the second respondent is very limited particularly under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. An order of a Settlement Commission can be interfered only if it is passed contrary to the provisions of the Act. 19. In Union of India v. Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd. 2011 (265) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) it was held as follows:- "An order passed by the Settlement Commission could be interfered with only if the said order is found to be contrary to any pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement Commission held as follows:- "The Commission's power of settlement has to be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Though the Commission has sufficient elbow room in assessing the income of the applicant and it cannot make any order with a term of settlement which would be in conflict with the mandatory provisions of the Act like in the quantum and payment of tax and the interest. The object of the legislature, in introducing Section 245C is to see that protracted proceedings before the authorities or in Courts are avoided by resorting to settlement of cases. In this process an assessee cannot expect any reduction in amounts statutorily payable under the Act". 22. The Court further held as follows: ....