FARDOON MINOO IRANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Admit on the following question of law

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.