Ankit Metal & Power Ltd & Ors vs Settlement Commission & Ors on 8 May, 2014

[Cites 1, Cited by 2]

Calcutta High Court

Ankit Metal & Power Ltd & Ors vs Settlement Commission & Ors on 8 May, 2014

Bench: Harish Tandon

ORDER SHEET
                              W. P. No. 392 of 2014
                          IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                        Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                                  ORIGINAL SIDE



                        ANKIT METAL & POWER LTD & ORS.
                                    Versus
                         SETTLEMENT COMMISSION & ORS.

       BEFORE:

       The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON

       Date : 8th May, 2014.



                                                                   Appearance :

                                                       Mr. Sudhir Meheta, Adv.

                                                           Mr. R. N. Das, Adv.
                                                        Mrs. Santa Mitra, Adv.



       The Court : The matter involves an interesting point of law

relating to the interpretation of the provisions contained under

Section      32O   of   the   Central   Excise   Act    1944.    The   petitioner

previously invoked        the provisions pertaining to the settlement

commission and have been exonerated from being prosecuted upon

imposition of penalty.

       A further show cause notice was issued upon the petitioner

alleging the non-payment of the duty leviable on the transactions

made    by   the   petitioner.   The    petitioner     further   approached   the
                                        2


settlement commission in taking out an application under section

32E of the Central Excise Act making a full and true disclosures

and deposited the duty in compliance of the provisions contained

therein.       The   Settlement   Commission    rejected   this     subsequent

application solely on the ground that once the benefit is availed

by the petitioner under the aforesaid chapter the said benefit

cannot be extended to the petitioner for all time to come.



      Upon reading the language under section 32O of the said Act,

the    prima    facie   impression   which     is   gathered   is   that   such

interpretation foreclosing the right of the person for all time to

come is opposed to the intendment and the object for which the

provision is incorporated.



      My attention is drawn to section which is stood prior to

2007, subsequent to 2007 till 2010 and after 2010 to show that the

legislature never intended to deny the right of a person to make

an application under section 32E necessitated by subsequent cause

of action after the disposal of the application based on distinct

cause of action on an earlier occasion. This Court, therefore,

finds that a prima facie has been made out.

      Mr. Das, learned advocate for the department however, submits

that he should be permitted to file opposition so that all the

materials could be disclosed for disposal of the writ petition.
                                       3


This Court, therefore, directs the respondent to file affidavit-

in-opposition within two weeks after the reopening of the Court following the Summer Vacation. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within a week thereafter.

Let this matter appear three weeks after reopening the Court following the Summer Vacation as 'Court Application' in the supplementary list.

The respondent authorities are restrained from proceeding any further on the basis of the show cause notice dated 07th of May 2013 till eight weeks after the summer vacation or until further orders whichever is earlier.

(HARISH TANDON, J.) SBI

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Calcutta High Court