Dead wood & something more removed from provisions of Settlement in Central Excise & Customs
By TIOL News Service
NEW DELHI, FEB 28, 2015: MANY sections of Settlement in Central Excise Act & the Customs Act have seen amendments this Budget. These will come into effect only after enactment. Bulk of these amendments are because these provisons have become redundant .Not that they became redundant now but some have been lying dead and unattended since the past seven years!
On the CE side, some of these are –
+ proviso to sub-section (3) of section 32;
+ sub-section (1A) to section 32E;
+ sub-section (6) to section 32F;
+ section 32H
+ sub-section (1) to section 32K
+ clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 32O
There are similar amendments in the Customs Act too.
Another amendment is in section 32B so as to enable even the Member to officiate as the Chairman in the absence of the Chairman of the Settlement Commission.
However, the amendment which catches attention pertains to section 31 of CEA, 1944 (s. 127A of Customs Act).
We refer to the provisions contained in the Central Excise Act, 1944 –
Section 31(c) reads –
(c) “case” means any proceeding under this Act or any other Act for the levy, assessment and collection of excise duty, pending before an adjudicating authority on the date on which an application under sub-section (1) of section 32E is made:
Provided that when any proceeding is referred back in any appeal or revision, as the case may be, by any court, Appellate Tribunal or any other authority, to the adjudicating authority for a fresh adjudication or decision, as the case may be, then such proceeding shall not be deemed to be a proceeding pending within the meaning of this clause;
By clause 93 of the Finance Bill, 2015, the words shown highlighted viz. “in any appeal or revision, as the case may be,” are being omitted.
The TRU-I letter mentions the following about this amendment - The proviso to sub-section (c) of section 31 relating to the provisions of Settlement Commission is being amended to delete the reference to “in appeal or revision, as the case may be” so as to provide that when any proceeding is referred back, whether in appeal or revision or otherwise, by any court, Appellate Tribunal Authority or any other authority to the adjudicating authority for a fresh adjudication or decision, then such case shall not be entitled for settlement.
Perhaps it would have been better had the reason for this omission been made clear.
One reason can be that usage of the words “appeal or revision” restricted the various occasions when the matter could be remanded by the Court/Tribunal.
Or should it be construed that as long as those words remain there, if the proceedings are remanded back in an appeal/revision filed by the assessee, ONLY then are they ineligible for bringing their “case” for settlement!