TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (4) TMI 97
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on, Customs & Central Excise, Mumbai in Settlement Application Nos. 13 and 31 of 2000 under Section 32F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3.The brief facts leading to filing of this petition, briefly stated, are as under :- The petitioner is registered under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to manufacture/process man-made fabrics. The searches carried out by the officers of the Central Excise at the premises of M/s. Balaji Industries, Surat, another processor, and its folding and transport contractors on 6-11-1997 resulted into seizure of certain incriminating documents, indicating clandestine removal of processed fabrics by the petitioner. To verify the facts, the officers of the Central Excise Depar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt aggregating to the total duty of Rs. 28,07,319-08. By the impugned order, the Commission determined the excise duty liability of the petitioner at Rs. 1,48,19,820/- and after giving credit of Rs. 28,07,319/- already paid by the petitioner and the traders, the Commission held that the balance duty payable by the petitioner was Rs. 1,20,12,501/-. Penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs was also imposed on the petitioner. Certain directions regarding waiver of interest were granted in excess of 10%. 4.The impugned order is challenged on various grounds. However, it is not necessary to enumerate or deal with those challenges because the first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Settlement Commission had taken in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Department to put forth concrete evidence as to how the rest of the amount which was not admitted by the petitioner was liable to be paid by them. It is submitted that at the final hearing before the Commission, the Revenue had submitted the aforesaid letter dated 18-9-2002 and no other concrete evidence was produced before the Commission and, therefore, the aforesaid letter dated 18-9-2002 must have heavily weighed with the Commission in determining the petitioner's liability at Rs. 1.48 Crores as against the petitioner's admitted duty liability of Rs. 28 lakhs. 5.On the other hand, Ms. D.N. Raval, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents has relied on the provisions of Section 32J and submitted that the petitioner was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion to make any such application, nor did the Settlement Commission have any occasion to exercise its discretion. 7.At this stage, it is also necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act, which are as under :- 32F. - Procedure on receipt of an application under Section 32E. (1) to (6) . . . . . . . . &n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it in this behalf and on payment of the prescribed fee : Provided that, for the purpose of enabling any person whose case is under consideration to rebut any evidence brought on record against him in any such report, the Settlement Commission shall, on an application made in this behalf, and on payment of the prescribed fee by such person, furnish him with a certified copy of any such report or part thereof relevant for the purpose." 8.On perusal of the aforesaid provisions it is clear that whenever any evidence is brought before the Settlement Commission, the assessee-petitioner will ordinarily have to be given an opportunity to meet with the same and it would only be in extraordinary circumstances that the Settlement Commission woul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....simple reason that in the order dated 16-8-2002 the Settlement Commission itself had recorded that the Commission directed the Revenue to put forth concrete evidence as to how the rest of the amount which is not admitted by the applicants is liable to be paid by them. In view of this clear observation made in the said interim order dated 16-8-2002 and in view of the aforesaid statement in the reply affidavit, and that the respondents are not pleading that the letter in question is of such nature that it would not be in public interest to supply a copy thereof to the petitioner, it will have to be held that the petitioner was entitled to get a copy of the said letter dated 18-9-2002. 10.At this stage, we would also like to make i....