TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 908
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... states that they got registered under the Commissionerate of Central Excise and Service Tax and got the Registration Certification on 04.03.2008. The petitioner availed the benefits of Finance Act, 2013 on 18.09.2014, which provided Voluntary Compliance of Encouragement Scheme (VCES) and paid the dues and the first respondent issued the acknowledgement. Thereafter, the first respondent issued the show cause notice on 20.10.2014 alleging certain arrears of service tax. Thus, the petitioner had invoked the jurisdiction of Settlement Commission by filing an application under Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on 09.12.2016. The Settlement Commission without considering the grounds raised by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n an iota of doubt in respect of the declaration could be sufficient to send the matter back to the adjudicating authority. Thus, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. In this regard, the learned Senior Standing Counsel relied on the findings of the Settlement Commission in paragraphs 5.4 to 5.6 which are extracted hereunder:- "5.4. The Bench observes that the disputed demand related to the income shown in the balance sheets vis a vis the taxable value declared in the VCES declaration. The applicant has also disputed the SCN for the period covering the VCES declaration on the ground that any legal proceedings could be initiated by the department under Section 111 of the Finance Act, 2013 only after rejecting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the rival parties to the proceedings. Such an act would tantamount to the Settlement Commission adjudicating upon the notice, based on the submissions made by the rival parties to the proceedings. It is now a well settled proposition that the Settlement Commission is not an adjudicating authority. It is only an arbitration forum where a dispute is settled in the interest of both the parties within the framework of law. This principle has clearly been enunciated by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Amrut Ornaments reported in 2014 (305) ELT 365 (Bom.) and by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India vs. Dharampal Satyapal as reported in 2013 (298) ELT 653 (Del.),by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tlement Commission must establish that the application contains full and true disclosure of his duty liability which has not been disclosed before the Central Excise Officer having jurisdiction. Thus, an approach to the Commission must be not only genuine, it must be proved that the application contains the true and full disclosure of duty liability, which has not been disclosed before the Central Excise Officer concerned. In the absence of an element of truthfulness in the application, the Commission is liable to reject the application in limini and send the matter back to the adjudicating authority by invoking Section 32L of the Act. This being the scope of consideration by the Settlement Commission, the findings of the Settlement Commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication proceedings. Further, the Settlement Commission observed that the applicant did not produce any documents substantiating their claim of substantial portion of income being relatable to non-taxable activity/exempted services before the investigating officers or before the Settlement Commission clearly indicating non-cooperation on their part for settling the issue. Thus, the case involves both disputed questions of fact and law and therefore, it would be appropriate that the case is to be adjudicated by the jurisdictional officer after appreciation of facts and evidences let in by the applicant. 10.The findings made in the impugned order would reveal that the complex nature of mixed question of law would be sufficient for the purpos....