Full Judgment
ORDER
SHEET W.P.No.393 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE ROHIT FERRO TECH LTD & ORS.Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSION & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 8th May, 2014.
Appearance : Mr.Sudhir Mehta, 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 previously invoked Central Excise Act 1944.
The petitioner 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 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.
This Court, therefore, directs the respondent to file affidavitin-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