Judgment:
Ferdino I. Rebello, J.
1. Rule. Heard forthwith.
After the matter was heard, the Counsel for the Petitioner has made a submission that the Petitioners are not contesting the order of the Settlement Commission but only pray that they may be allowed to pay by installments. The limited question is whether it is open to this court, in the exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction, to grant installments to the Petitioners even when the Settlement Commission itself in its order has not so provided.
2. The learned Counsel for that purpose has placed for our consideration the instructions issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), the Central Board of Excise and Customs dated 5th August, 1985 contained in F. No. 289/56/85-CD.9. By that circular it is set out that the powers of the Principal Collector of Central Excise to pay by installments have been withdrawn and this issue had been under consideration of the Government for some time past. The Government had now decided to delegate to Principal Collector of Central Excise the power to grant, in individual cases, the facility of payment of Central Excise dues upto twelve installments, on merits. The facility was to be granted only in deserving cases, taking into account the financial position of the assessee, the long term interest of revenue and on the usual terms and conditions with simple interest 17.5% compounded at the end of each month chargeable from the date of confirmation of the demand. This was further clarified by Circular No. 32/32/94/CX dated 11.4.1994. Relying upon these circulars, the learned Counsel submits that it is open to grant installments.
3. The application in the instant case was field on 31.5.2007. It was allowed to be proceeded with on 22.01.2008. The Settlement Commission thereafter passed an order on 31.10.2008.
Section 32F has been substituted by Act No. 22 of 2007 with effect from 1.6.2007. Section 32F(10) as it originally stood read as under:
Where any duty payable in pursuance of an order under Sub-section (7) is not paid by the assessee within thirty days of the receipt of a copy of the order by him, then, whether or not the Settlement Commission has extended the time for payment of such duty or has allowed payment thereof by installments, the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of eighteen per cent per annum or at such other rate as notified by the Central Board of Excise and Customs on the amount remaining unpaid from the date of expiry of the period of thirty days aforesaid.
It would thus be clear that earlier this was power in the tribunal to grant installments.
4. Earlier Petitioners had filed a petition before this court being W.P. No. 2005 of 2008 dated 20.6.2008 challenging the order dated 29.2.2008 passed by the Commission in not allowing the application to be proceeded with. This court by its order dated 20.6.2008 sent the matter back for fresh hearing. In the instant case, after remand the application was allowed to be proceeded considering Section 32F as settled with effect from 1.6.2007 is relevant. Section 32F(8) is relevant and which reads as under:
The order passed under Sub-section (5) shall provide for the terms of settlement including any demand by way of duty, penalty or interest, the manner in which any sums due under the settlement shall be paid and all other matters to make th settlement effective and in case of rejection contain the reasons therefor and it shall also provide that the settlement shall be void if it is subsequently found by the Settlement Commission that it has been obtained ;by fraud, or misrepresentation of facts.
5. While introducing the Bill, Clause 112 of the Finance Bill stated as under:
Clause 112 seeks to substitute Section 32F of the Central Excise Act with a view to specify time limit at every stage for the disposal of the application field before the Settlement Commission, it, inter alia, provides that in respect of an application filed on or before 31st May, 2007, the order shall be passed by 28th February, 2008 and in respect of the application made on or before 1st day of June, 2007, the order shall be passed within nine months of the application. It also provides that the amount of settlement ordered by the Commission shall in no case be less than duty liability admitted by the applicant. It further provides that the settlement amount shall be paid within 30 days of the receipt of the order and no extension for payment of settlement amount shall be granted by the Commission.
From the above provisions, it would be clear that under Sub-sections 32F(8) and (10) as it earlier stood, it was open to the settlement commission to make payments by installments. No such specific provision has been made under Section 32F(8) as now substituted. Under Section 32F(9) the amount which remains unpaid within 30 days of the direction to pay, then the sums can be recovered in the manner as set out under Section 11. The two other provisions which are relevant are Section 32M and 32N which reads as under:
32M. Order of settlement to be conclusive - Every order of settlement passed under Sub-section (5) of Section 32F shall be conclusive as to the matters stated therein and no matter covered by such order shall, save as otherwise provided in this Chapter, be reopened in any proceeding under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force.
32N. Recovery of sums due under order of settlement - Any sum specified in an order of settlement passed under Sub-section (5) of Section 32F may, subject to such conditions if any as may be specified therein, be recovered, and any penalty for default in making payment of such sum may be imposed and recovered as sums due to the Central Government in accordance with the provisions under Section 11 by the Central Excise Officer having jurisdiction over the person who made the application for settlement under Section 32E.
6. Considering the above, it is clear that as the order of settlement commission is final and mode of recovery is also set out therein, it will not be open to the Collector of Central Excise assuming that the circular of 5th August 1985 and 11.4.1994 to interfere with the order passed by the Settlement Commission, which is exercising quasi judicial powers. In the circumstances, can a writ court exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction, when the settlement commission has thought it fit not to grant any installment, grant installments assuming that under Section 32F(8) there is an implied power to grant installments. This court ordinarily, ought not to interfere in the exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction with the order passed by the Settlement Commission.
7. Apart from that as we have pointed out the language of Section 32F(10) as it earlier stood read with Section 32(7) provided for installments. That is not the case now. In other words it must be assumed that the legislature has expressly done away with the power to make payment by installments. In respect of similar provisions pertaining to the Income Tax Act, by Finance Act, 1984 w.e.f. 1.10.1984 the powers of the Settlement Commission to grant payment by installments has been recognized. That continues till date. On the other hand in the present legislation the power conferred under erstwhile Section 32F(10) has been omitted from Section 32F as it now stands. This also would indicate the legislative intent not to provide for installments.
8. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find that there is no merit in this matter. Rule discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.