News Update

CDS Gen Anil Chauhan to chair Parivartan Chintan - IICus - Warehousing of imported solar panels/solar modules - Instruction dated 9 th July 2022 appears to travel far beyond the advisory and clarificatory function which stands placed in the Board by virtue of s.151A of CA, hence quashed: HCPhase III: EC records 65.68% voter turnoutCus - Petitioner had opted for conversion from a less rigorous procedure of availing Duty Drawback Scheme to a more rigorous procedure under Advance Authorisation Scheme and as per Circular 36/10-Customs, same was not possible: HCDRDO organises two-day National Symposium & Industry Meet on 'Emerging TechnologiesCX - Respondents cannot go beyond the Reward Scheme as no discretion is vested with them to release any amount towards the reward, before finalization of the proceedings against assessee: HCGST - Petitioner is given liberty to manually file an appeal against impugned order regarding transitional credit of SGST for which they had valid evidence for payment of VAT of same amount: HCGST - For the period for which return was filed, registration cannot be cancelled retrospectively: HCHas Globalisation favoured capital more than labour? Can taxing super-rich help?GST - SC asks Govt not to use coercion for recovering arrearsChanging Tax Landscape in IndiaPrivate equity funds pouring in India’s healthcare sectorInterpretation of StatutesGoogle, Microsoft move Delhi HC against order to erase non-consensual intimate images16th Finance Commission invites views from general public on terms of referenceEvery party committed to ensure PoK returns to India; Jaishankar695 candidates to contest LS elections in Phase 5Astronomers’ efforts lead to discovery of a rocky planet with atmosphereCSIR hosts Student-Science Connect program on Climate ChangeVolkswagen asks EU not to raise tariffs on EVs from ChinaI-T - Assessee given insufficient time to file reply to Show Cause Notice; assessment order quashed; matter remanded for reconsidering assessee's replies: HCChina blocks imports from Intel & QualcommI-T - Assessee has 5 email IDs & responded to communications received on one of these IDs; Assessee cannot claim to have been denied an opportunity of personal hearing before passing of order: HCRecord rainfall damages over 1 lakh homes in Brazil; over 100 lives lostI-T- Additions framed u/s 68 r/w Section 115BBE are unwarranted where assessee duly explains nature & source of cash receipts, through sufficient documentation: ITATRussia bombards Ukraine’s power supply; Serious outages fearedI-T- Re-assessment cannot be resorted to beyond 4 years from end of relevant AY, where assessee has not failed to file ITR or to make full & true disclosure of facts necessary for assessment: ITATIndia received foreign remittance of USD 111 bn in 2022, says UNI-T- Receipt of subscription fees can't be considered as commercial activity: ITATPitroda resigns as Chairman of Indian Overseas Congress over racist remarkST - In case of payment received through cheque, it is the date of honouring cheque, which has to be construed as date of receipt of advance payment and since amount was received by appellant on or after appointed date, appellant would not be entitle to benefit of exemption notification: CESTAT86 flights of AI Express cancelled as crew goes on mass sick leaveCus - When undervaluation of goods is alleged solely based on value of contemporaneous imports, all details relating to such imports are to be necessarily established by Revenue: CESTAT
 
Application before Settlement Commission - Meaning of 'before adjudication' in Section 32E - Application filed before date of dispatch of order of adjudication is maintainable before Settlement Commission: Bombay HC

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, APRIL 30, 2013: THE Petitioner was issued a Show Cause Notice demanding central excise duty of 1.73 crores. On 10 January 2011, the Petitioner's Advocate addressed a letter to the Commissioner specifically stating that a decision had been taken to file a settlement application under Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Together with the letter, which was received by the Commissioner on the same day, the Petitioner enclosed a copy of the GAR-7 challan reflecting the payment of the fee for filing of the settlement application. The letter indicated that the Petitioner was working out the duty liability together with interest since it was required to be paid before the filing of an application before the Settlement Commission. The letter recorded that the Petitioner would file an application for settlement of the case probably within that week itself and requested the Commissioner to keep the adjudication proceedings in abeyance, until a settlement application was filed. On 11 January 2011, the Superintendent (Adjudication) addressed a letter to the DGCEI for supply of documents relied upon in the notice to show cause to the Petitioner. The Commissioner, notwithstanding the request of the Petitioner and without waiting for the supply of documents to the Petitioner as sought, passed an order dated 13 January 2011 adjudicating upon the notice to show cause. The Petitioner filed a settlement application before the Settlement Commission on 14 January 2011. The order of adjudication was dispatched to the Petitioner on 19 January 2011.

By a majority order, two members of the Settlement Commission held that under Section 32E, an application to the Settlement Commission has to be filed by an assessee to have a case settled before adjudication. The majority held that the settlement application, which was filed on 14 January 2011, was not maintainable since the Commissioner had already adjudicated upon the notice to show cause on 13 January 2011.

The Petitioner is before the High Court against the rejection of application by the Settlement Commission.

After hearing both sides, the High Court held:

++ In the context of Section 32E, an application before the Settlement Commission cannot be filed before the receipt of a notice of the Central Excise Officer for the recovery of duty. An application can be filed before adjudication, to the Settlement Commission. An application before the Settlement Commission is not maintainable after adjudication. A purposive interpretation has to be placed on the expression “before adjudication”. An adjudication cannot be regarded as being complete merely upon the signing of an order by the adjudicating authority. If the adjudicating authority were to keep the order in his own drawer without dispatching it to the assessee the latter would have no means of knowing of the making of the order. An order of adjudication must be placed by the adjudicating authority out of his control by dispatching it to the assessee. For it is once that stage is achieved that the adjudicating authority ceases to have any locus poenitentiae . Once the authority dispatches the order, the adjudicator places it out of his control. There can be no possibility then of the adjudicating authority tearing off the order or making a different order.

++ The Commissioner, without waiting for receipt of the documents of which disclosure was sought and without paying heed to the request of the assessee proceeded to pass an order of adjudication in haste on 13 January 2011. The order was actually dispatched to the assessee on 19 January 2011 when the assessee had already moved a settlement application on 14 January 2011. The adjudicating officer put his order of adjudication out of his control by dispatching it to the assessee only after the filing of the settlement application. In these circumstances, the settlement application could not have been dismissed as being not maintainable. The view which has been taken by the majority of two members of the Settlement Commission is patently erroneous.

(See 2013-TIOL-339-HC-MUM-CX)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.


Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.