NIGEL PANWALA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Settlement Commission has passed an order on 22-3-2013, copy of which is at Annexure-D (page 81) and the order has been assailed before us to the extent of imposition of fine. Paragraph 35 of the operative order directs settlement of the case under Section 127C(5) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the terms and conditions indicated therein. They inter alia cover the imposition of fine. To that extent, the order reads as under :

(2.) The counsel for the petitioner submits that before the Settlement Commission it was argued that the amount was liable to be paid by the person who had executed the Bonds before the authorities and not the petitioner/original applicant No. The second respondent failed to appreciate that the vehicles in question were seized from the possession of the third respondent. They were provisionally released to him on execution of Bonds and Bank Guarantees. The same were executed by the third respondent and therefore any direction of this nature is unsustainable in law. The direction, therefore, could not have been issued. If at all there was any liability, it was on the third respondent and not the petitioner.

(3.) Upon such a contention which was raised on the earlier occasion and after hearing the petitioner for some time, we had called upon Mr. Mishra, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, to explain as to how the terms and conditions for settlement would incorporate a direction of this nature. Mr. Mishra sought time and to take appropriate instructions.