AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard. Admit on the following question of law
Whether the CESTAT was justified in confirming the duty demand on account of the alleged undervaluation of AC parts by holding that the proceedings before the Settlement Commission, Customs & Central Excise as provided in Chapter V of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are not judicial proceedings and any admission made before that Commission would not be judicial admission?.
In the present case by an order-in-original dated 19-12-1997 the duty demand amounting to Rs. 39 lakhs were confirmed and penalty was also imposed. Challenging the said order, the assessee filed appeal before the CESTAT. During pendency of the appeal before the CESTAT, the appellant/assessee withdrew the appeal and filed an application before the Settlement Commission. By a final order dated 23-12-2005 the Settlement Commission rejected the application of the assessee and remanded the matter back to the CESTAT. On remand, the CESTAT by its order dated 30-12-2010, inter alia, confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 7,19,997/- relating to the undervaluation of the AC parts.
Before the CESTAT the appellant/assessee had contended that certain admissions made by the Counsel for the Revenue were binding on the Revenue. However, the CESTAT held that the proceedings before the Settlement Commission were not judicial proceedings and that the admissions made before the Settlement Commission cannot be called as judicial admissions. Challenging the above decision of the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed.
Section 32P of the Central Excise Act, 1944 specifically states that the proceedings before the Settlement Commission shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 and for the purpose of Section 196 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, in relation to the proceedings before the CESTAT, the proceedings before the Settlement Commission may not be judicial proceedings. However, when the Counsel for the Revenue had made certain admissions on verification of the records, it was just and proper for the Revenue to demonstrate as to how the admissions made before the Settlement Commission were erroneous and it was just and proper for the CESTAT to record a finding as to why the admissions made by the Revenue before the Settlement Commission were not binding on the Revenue. In the absence of any such finding recorded by the Tribunal, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the Tribunal.
Accordingly, we set aside the decision of the CESTAT to the extent it confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 7,19,997/- and restore the issue for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.