I.P. Mukerji, J. - (1.) The Court: It appears that the Settlement Commission in its order dated 28th March, 2014 has not made a correct interpretation of Sec. 32 -O(i) of the Central Excise Act, which is reproduced below: "32 -0.... Where, - (i) an order of settlement passed under sub -section (7) of Sec. 3ZF, as it stood immediately before the commencement of Sec. 122 of the Finance Act, 2007 (22 of 2007) or sub -section (5) of Sec. 32F, provides for the imposition of a penalty on the person who made the application under Sec. 32E for settlement, on the ground of concealment of particulars of his duty liability; ....... then, he shall not be entitled to apply for settlement under Sec. 32E in relation to any other matter." The Commission has no doubt held in paragraph 24 of its order that a penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs was imposed on M/s. Ankit Metal & Power Limited.
(2.) But it failed to appreciate that this did not prevent Ankit Metal & Power Limited from approaching the Settlement Commission in a second case unless the penalty was inflicted on them, on their making a Sec. 32E application for settlement and that the ground of imposition of that penalty was concealment of particulars of duty liability.
(3.) Sec. 32E enacts in very clear terms that an assessee may in a case relating to him make an application after issuance of the show cause notice but before adjudication, to the Settlement Commission to have the case settled. Such application has to be in a prescribed form with full and true disclosure of the applicant's duty liability which has not been disclosed before the Central Excise Officer having jurisdiction.;