CWP No. 14544 of 2008 (O&M). Case: Central Excise Commissionerate Vs Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission. High Court of Punjab (India)
| Case Number | CWP No. 14544 of 2008 (O&M) |
| Counsel | Gurpreet Singh, Jagmohan Bansal |
| Judges | Adarsh Kumar Goel & Alok Singh, JJ. |
| Issue | Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 32E, 32F(5) |
| Citation | 2010 (256) ELT 70 (P & H) |
| Judgement Date | March 17, 2010 |
| Court | High Court of Punjab (India) |
Judgment:
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.
-
This petition seeks quashing of order dated 28.12.2007, Annexure P.4 passed by the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission under the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, 'the 1944 Act').
-
Respondent No.2 assessee is manufacturer of Snuff under Chapter 24 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for short, 'the 1985 Act'). Search was carried out in its premises and its partners on 19.4.2006. Search was also carried out in the godown of the sister concern of the assessee, respondent No.6. Stocks cleared clandestinely were found. Investigation was initiated during which the assessee deposited amount of Rs.40 lacs, while according to the department, the duty due was Rs.1,53,32,607/-. Show Cause Notice was issued demanding the above amount of duty and proposing confiscation of seized goods and levy of penalty. The assessee moved application before the Settlement Commissioner under section 32E of the 1944 Act. The Settlement Commission after considering the rival claims of the parties, passed an order under section 32F(5) of the 1944 Act directing the assessee to pay amount of Rs.31,88,629/- towards duty with interest, redemption fine and penalty but granted immunity from prosecution and waived part of interest, redemption fine and penalty. It was further held that the revenue was entitled to return the amount of Rs.35,38,521/- being the value of goods which were seized after deducting redemption fine in respect of the said goods.
-
The revenue has filed this petition on the ground that the Settlement Commission could not assess the value of goods.
-
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
-
Only question which has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the settlement Commission had no...
To continue reading
Request your trial