Writ Petition No. 2692 of 2014. Case: Poona Tools Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 2692 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri Prakash Shah, Durgaprasad Poojari i/b. M/s. PDS Legal. and For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kantharia with Jitendra B. Mishra, Adv. |
| Judges | S.C. Dharmadhikari and Sunil P. Deshmukh, JJ. |
| Issue | Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 32E, 32F |
| Citation | 2015 (323) ELT 572 (Bom) |
| Judgement Date | January 28, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
Sunil P. Deshmukh, J. (Oral)
-
Rule.
-
Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties and heard finally.
-
By this petition invoking powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners question the propriety and legality of the order dated 28th July, 2014, whereunder, the Settlement Commission purports to decline consideration of the application, with reference to bar under Section 32-O(1)(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
-
A show cause notice dated 19th December, 2012 was issued to the petitioner, alleging taking of incorrect and irregular Cenvat credit and seeking explanation as to why extended period of limitation under Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 should not be invoked for wilfully suppressing facts, why Cenvat credit of Rs. 63,22,329/- availed of in contravention of Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 should not be disallowed and recovered, why interest should not be recovered under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and as to why penalty should not be imposed.
-
The petitioners, with reference to aforesaid show cause notice, lodged an application on 5th December, 2013 pursuant to Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944, seeking settlement. Thereafter, the Settlement Commission had issued notice asking the petitioners to remove discrepancies occurring in the application and making certain other queries. The requirements under the said notice were attended to and complied with by the petitioners. It appears that under order dated 20th December, 2013, the Settlement Commission decided to proceed with the application. The petitioners, however, thereafter sought exemption from appearance. While the order dated 28th July, 2014 was passed by the Settlement Commission in said proceeding, the Commission considered that under an earlier settlement application in respect of a show cause notice dated 28th December, 2012 issued to the petitioners under the order dated 31st October, 2013, the petitioners were penalised and as such bar under Section 32-O(1) would be attracted. Further, it went on to observe that the applicants had committed fraud on the department by showing payment of duty, in their return, while no payment has been actually made and it would not have been found out but for the investigation by DGCEI.
-
Mr. Shah, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently submits that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial