Case Law Details
SCN only speaks of three components of duty, i.e., BCD, CVD and SAD. The Settlement Commission, while, giving relief to the appellant, vis-a-vis, SAD has by way of settlement imposed ADE upon it, for the reasons given in the impugned order.
ADE could not have been imposed on the appellant, which, admittedly, did not form part of SCN. The approach adopted by the Settlement Commission resulted in making matters worse for the appellant.
Settlement Commission could not have crossed the periphery of the SCN, and imposed a duty and that too, at rate higher than, what could have been mandated in law.
Settlement Commission has the same powers which are available to the Assessing Officer under Section 127 C of the Act, and hence, could have imposed ADE on the Assessee, is, in our view, untenable, in the facts of the instant case.
The reason for the same, is that, in our opinion, even the Assessing Officer could not have gone beyond the SCN. Therefore, by logical corollary, if, the Assessing Officer could not have gone beyond the SCN, we have grave doubts as to whether the Settlement Commission, in exercise of powers under Section 127C of the Act, could have included ADE in the final order passed by it, and that too, at a rate, which adversely, impacted the appellant’s financial burden, in the given facts and circumstances.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
