TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 868
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The purchaser-Company is registered with the Central Excise Registration and submitting monthly returns with the jurisdictional range. 3. A search was conducted in the premises of the petitioner- Company by the Officers of the Director General Central Excise Intelligence on 30.01.2006. On 07.02.2006, two computers were opened with the assistance of the officials of the petitioner-Company and the authorities seized two hard disks and sealed the same in the presence of the Company Officials. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the two seized hard disks are not produced before the Settlement Commission for investigation. Thus, there was no transparency in the matter of conducting an investigation by the Department Officials. Pursuant to the search, show cause notice was issued on 07.11.2008. Under those circumstances, the petitioner filed an application before the Settlement Commission under Section 32-E of the Act. 5. The learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, mainly contended that there was a discrepancy in Commissioner's Report and absolutely, there was no transparency in dealing with the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the Settlement Commission provided an opportunity to the petitioner to disclose all material facts for the purpose of settling the issues. Therefore, the present writ petition is devoid of merits, as the findings of the Settlement Commission would reveal that the petitioner has not approached the Settlement Commission with full and true material facts. 11. Considering the arguments as advanced by the respective learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, let us now consider the scope of the application filed before the Settlement Commission under the provisions of the Act. 12. Section 32-E of the Act, contemplates 'application for settlement of cases'. Sub-section (1) of Section 32-E stipulates that 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inion that any person who made an application for settlement under Section 32-E has not cooperated with the Settlement Commission in the proceedings before it, send the case back to the Central Excise Officer having jurisdiction who shall thereupon dispose of the case in accordance with the provisions of this Act as if no application under Section 32-E had been made." 16. Therefore, for entertaining an application under Section 32-E of the Act, the application must contain full and true disclosure of duty liability, which had not been disclosed before the Central Excise officer having jurisdiction. Secondly, sub-section (1) of Section 32-L of the Act contemplates that any person who made an application for settlement under Section 32-E has not cooperated with the Settlement Commission in the proceedings before it. Unless the first condition is satisfied, the application cannot be admitted. Once the application is admitted, till the end of the proceedings, the person who submits an application has to cooperate with the Settlement Commission for the purpose of settling the issues. 17. The twin conditions admitted in the above two conditions are of paramount importance. In view ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, again the Settlement Commission considered the issues and the relevant findings of the Settlement Commission, in paragraphs 8.13, 8.15, 8.16, 8.17, 8.18 and 8.19, are as under:- "8.13 It is observed by the Bench that majority of balance demand for '16.20 crores (Approx.) out of total demand of '16.73 crores (Approx.) is based on entries in various seized documents which also found place in the computer data as deciphered by GEQD. The applicant pleaded vehemently not to place any reliance on the GEQD data as according to him the entire data had been manipulated and doctored by unknown departmental officers just to justify the demands raised against the applicant company. 8.15. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. During hearing, amongst all other things, the Applicant pleaded that points raised relating to authenticity of GEQD report has not been investigated and requested for ordering investigation which was agreed to by the Bench. The Bench ordered for an investigation vide order dated 29.04.2013 by the Commissioner (Investigation) to conduct a detailed investigation on the aspects stated therein. After co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... now finds prima facie in the light of the Commissioner (Investigation)'s report dated 21.06.2013 that the authenticity of the GEQD report cannot be disputed. This along with the other primary evidences recovered from the applicant's premises lead us to believe that the Revenue's position is well founded. However, the applicant has neither agreed to the Revenue's stand nor produced any fresh evidences to reconsider the matter. 8.19. As such response from the applicant is neither conducive nor cooperative for settlement of the dispute. Therefore, Bench holds that it would be appropriate to return the case to the adjudicating authority for disposal in accordance with law due to lack of cooperation for settlement on their part." Finally, the Commission remanded the case to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Commissionerate in terms of Section 32-L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for proceeding with the adjudication. 22. Perusal of the above findings made by the Settlement Commission would reveal that the Commissioner's Investigation Report dated 21.06.2013 and its authenticity of the GEQD Report, cannot be disputed. Primary evidences were als....