TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (3) TMI 75
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t pursuant to show cause notice dated 18/5/2005 during pendency of proceedings, an application came to be moved before Settlement Commission by the petitioner company on 27/5/2007 admitting duty liability of Rs.23,80,732/-. Before the application dated 27/5/2007 was filed, a separate show cause notice in relation to a different period came to be issued on 30/11/2006. During pendency of the proceedings relatable to the second show cause notice, petitioner submitted a letter dated 30/5/2007 before the Settlement Commission with reference to the second show cause notice dated 30/11/2006, and admitted duty liability of Rs.19,12,1296/-. On 8/1/2008 Settlement Commission heard the matter and accepted application dated 27/5/2007 in relation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... additional disclosure of Rs. 14,63,783/- is with reference to another Show Cause Notice, different from the Show Cause Notice No. V(Ch. 73 & 84) 3-01/Dem/05 dated 18.05.2005 issued by Additional Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Vapi, for which application was filed on 22.05.2007 by the applicant. The applicant has created confusion and is also seeking to create confusion in the proceedings before the Settlement Commission by obfuscating the issues. However, since the facts show that the applicant earnestly wants to come clean in respect of the clandestine clearances covered by a different Show Cause Notice, the Commission grants applicant the liberty to file a fresh and amended application separately in respect of the said Show Caus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the application was made, failing which the settlement proceedings shall abate, and the adjudicating authority before whom the proceeding at the time of making the application was pending, shall dispose of the case in accordance with the provisions of this Act as if no application under section 32E had been made. 7.2 In view of the above, the applications filed by the applicants on 05.05.2008 are liable to be rejected and are rejected under Section 32F (1) of the Act." Learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently assailed the order of Settlement Commission dated 10/7/2008 and also a part of the order dated 8/1/2008, in so far as the Settlement Commission had directed to treat petitioners' application as deemed to have been fil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... incorrect on part of the petitioners to state that Settlement Commission could not have acted in accordance with the requirement of provisions. It was further submitted that the first order dated 8/1/2008 had been received by the petitioner on 14/1/2008, despite which the second application had been moved only on 5/5/2008. That, in the circumstances there was no error committed by the Settlement Commission in any of its orders so as to warrant intervention. Sub-section (6) of Section 32F of the Act reads as under : "(6) An order under sub-section (5) shall not be passed in respect of an application filed on or before the 1st day of May, 2007, later than the 29th day of February, 2008 and in respect of an application made or or after ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no fault can be found with the Settlement Commission. The test is, if instead of letter dated 30/5/2007, the petitioner had moved a separate application in the prescribed form on 30/5/2007 itself, the statutory period of limitation which expires on 29/2/2008, would have come into play. That is the only way one can read the order considering the facts and circumstances of the case. In these circumstances, the second order of Settlement Commission dated 21/7/2008 cannot also be said to suffer from any legal infirmity. Apart from this, the fact remains that despite the first order having been received by the petitioner on 14/1/2008, the petitioner chose to wait till 5/5/2008 before preferring the application, permitted to be filed, for subs....