Skip to content

Important judgments

Important judgments :

RR Builders vs. CCE 2008 (223) E.L.T. 348 (Guj.)Once there is a requirement prescribed by the statute by way of a qualifying condition, it is not possible to admit applications which do not fulfill the requirement stipulated by the first proviso to Section 32E(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944.
Mars Thereputics and Chem. Ltd. vs. CCE Settlement Commission 2008 (223) E.L.T. 363 (AP)An application can be admitted and proceeded with only when Settlement Commission is satisfied that applicant has made a full and true disclosure. The onus is on applicant to make a full and true disclosure of duty liability and the manner in which same is arrived at.
In Re: Sadik Sadruddin Chunara (Sett.Comm) 2006 (203) E.L.T. 324.The Person who is absconding and never appeared before the investigating agency cannot be prevented from making an application before Settlement Commission.
Commr of Customs v. Mahesh Raj 2006 (195) E.L.T. 261 (Kar.)Smugglers, habitual offenders & unscrupulous elements cannot be offered protection under the settlement scheme. It covers cases only where there is no deliberate/intended desire on part of the importer to evade/avoid payment of duty.


FavoriteLoadingAdd to favorites



Leave a Reply