2008 (11) TMI 260

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Commission under Section 32(E) of the Central Excise Act 1944. After holding necessary enquiry, the Commission, in Settlement Application in C.V/15/71-2007/S.C., by order dated 28-2-2008, passed the following order : "Accordingly, the application is settled finally under sub Section (7) of Section 32F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the following terms and conditions :- (i) The duty liability for unaccounted clearances is settled at Rs. 21,13,836/- against which the applicant had already paid Rs. 21,27,803/-. Hence, there is no further duty liability on this score. (ii) The seized goods should be released by the appropriate authority on payment of appropriate duty which is Rs. 32,878/- a part of which has already been paid. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....th law, based on the materials and to pass appropriate orders. In the case on hand, though it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Company is a Sick Industrial Company and further materials were also placed justifying waiver of both penalty and interest, according to the learned counsel, the Commission has not considered the matter and instead, the Commission has imposed penalty as well as interest. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, these two clauses in the impugned order relating to interest and penalty should be set aside and the matter should be remanded back to the Commission for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 3. A detailed counter has been filed by the respondents. Reiterating the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Commission is obliged to consider whether the petitioners' Company has co-operated with the Settlement Commission in the proceedings before it and whether they have made a full and true disclosure of the duty liability. But, in this case, absolutely, there is no finding regarding these facts. Therefore, I am of the view that in respect of penalty, for want of any discussion and for want of any specific finding, the matter requires re-consideration by the Commission. 6. But, in respect of interest, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has pointed out that in paragraph-15 of the order, there is a discussion as well as finding as to why the Commission has declined to waive the interest. The learned counsel for the petitioner is....