- (1.) The point involved in the writ petition assumes significance on the interpretation of the various provisions contained in Chapter V of the Central Excise Act pertaining to the Settlement Commission.
(2.) The incorporation of the said Chapter was perceived for rampant colossal evasion of duties and/or tax effecting the health and wealth of the nation. The Wanchoo Committee was appointed to opine and make recommendations against those evils. In acceptance of the partial recommendations, the provision of Settlement Commission was introduced and Chapter 19A was brought in the Income Tax Act, 1961 containing the provisions for Settlement Commission. Subsequently the Chapter V was inserted in Central Excise Act by Section 110 of the Finance Act, 1998, which was suitably amended from time to time. With an intention to make it more workable and for speedy recovery of the revenue rather than from the cumbersome provision of the recovery proceedings, the object and purpose of the Settlement Commission can be culled out from Section 32E of the said Act where an assessee may make an application for settlement before adjudication upon making true and full disclosure of his duty liability which has not been disclosed before the Central Excise Officer provided the ingredients required therefore are satisfied. Proviso inserted thereto laid down the requisite ingredients for maintaining the said application, I would delve to deal with different provisions contained in Chapter V of the said Act but before I do so, it would be relevant to quote the foundational facts which are, more or less, admitted.
(3.) The Petitioner-Company is an assessee registered under the Central Excise Act and allotted the registration No. AACB4235DXN001. A search was conducted by the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGEI) and seizes various documents, papers and the statement and started the investigation of the duty evasion. A show cause notice cum demand was issued on 28.12.2012 against the Company and two of its Directors, alleging the violation of several provisions of the said Act and the rules framed thereunder and raising a demand with further contemplation to impose penalty and interest. The Company approached the Settlement Commission and the order passed on that application is challenged in this writ petition. By the impugned order, the Company was directed to pay an additional amount of Rs. 10,26,478/- and further imposed a penalty of Rs. 22 Lakh on the Company and personal penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs each on two of its directors.;