DEBANGSU BASAK, J. - (1.) The department as the petitioner has assailed an order passed by the Settlement Commission acting under the provisions of Section 32F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
(2.) Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the Settlement Commission had erred in failing to appreciate that, the respondent had obtained Cenvat credit before the closure of its factory. The Settlement Commission had also failed to appreciate that the respondent is guilty of removing the goods clandestinely. He has submitted that the impugned order of the Settlement Commission is therefore bad.
(3.) Learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that the respondent was a Sick Industrial Undertaking within the meaning of the Sick Industrial Undertaking (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and that a reference to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) was made in respect of the respondent. The respondent had made an application for settlement under Section 32F before the Settlement Commission upon receipt of a show cause notice. It had disclosed all its materials before the Settlement Commission. The Settlement Commission had considered the rival contentions on a detailed basis and has returned the findings as recorded in the impugned order. The impugned order has dealt with the contentions raised by the petitioner presently. He has referred to the grounds of the writ petition and has submitted that no ground has been made out challenging the impugned order. He has also referred to the points of law claimed to be raised in the writ petition and submitted as a part of writ petition and has submitted that, such points of law has to be answered in favour of the respondent.;