TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 514
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....name of the counsel for the petitioner and respondents in these 2 writ petitions have not been printed in the list. Therefore, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner and respondents in these 2 cases. This was brought to the notice of this court after the present writ petition taken up for hearing and heard at length. Having heard the present writ petition at length, these 2 writ petitions directed to be delinked and to be heard separately. 2. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by the first respondent Settlement Commission on 29.09.2016 vide its Final Order No.72 of 2016 in F.No.S.A.S.Tax No.46/2016-SC. 3. By the impugned order dated 29.09.2016, the first respondent Set....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reference is drawn to the language in Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which is reproduced below:- "Section 32E. Application for settlement of cases.- [(1) An assessee may, in respect of a case relating to him, make an application, before adjudication, to the Settlement Commission to have the case settled, in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed and containing a full and true disclosure of his duty liability which has not been disclosed before the Central Excise Officer having jurisdiction, the manner in which such liability has been derived, the additional amount of excise duty accepted to be payable by him and such other particulars as may be prescribed including the particulars of such excisable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (1A) ....... (2) ....... (3) Every application made under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed. (4) An application made under sub-section (1) shall not be allowed to be withdrawn by the applicant." 6. It is submitted that in view of the amendment to section 32 E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 Vide Finance Act (No.2), 2014 (29 of 2014), the 1st respondent Settlement Commission can ignore non-filing of the returns and entertain the application for settling the case after reasons are recorded for entertaining the application to settle the case. It is therefore submitted that imposition of late fee under Rule 7C of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 was unsustainable. 7. The learne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aboratories Ltd., (2011) 4 SCC 635 10. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner had not filed the returns prior to issue a Show Cause Notice dated 15.10.2014 and therefore question of issuing Show Cause Notice incorporating such proposal to levy late payment fee under Rule 7C of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 did not arise. He further submits that the order of the first respondent Settlement Commission was a composite order for settling the dispute with the department and therefore it is not open for the petitioner to call for interference under Article 226 of Constitution of India as the scheme of Chapter V of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is to bring a finality to the case. 11. It is further submitted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to pay a sum of Rs. 1,46,000/- as late fee, whereas, the petitioner submitted a statement of working, wherein, it has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,28,000/-. It is further submitted that the first respondent Settlement Commissioner after considering the amendments to the provisions of Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 which was amended on 08.04.2011, has rightly held that the petitioner was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,46,000/- instead of Rs. 1,28,000/- and Rs. 1,66,000/- as was contended by each of them. 14. The petitioner had agreed to pay late fee, but also submitted that the late fee could not be paid due to extreme final constraints and prayed for waiver of the same or given some more time for payment of late fee. 15. Heard th....