2026-VIL-977-DEL-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE High Court Cases

Central Excise - Scope of Judicial Review of Settlement Commission Orders - Sufficiency of Evidence - The Petitioner approached the Settlement Commission for adjustment of CENVAT credit reversal in respect of its manufacturing activities during 2005. The Settlement Commission rejected the claim for adjustment on the ground that the documentary evidence furnished by the petitioner was insufficient to establish the reversal - Whether the High Court could interfere with the Settlement Commission's order on grounds of sufficiency and adequacy of evidence placed before it – HELD - The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 while examining an order of the Settlement Commission does not exercise appellate jurisdiction and the question is not whether the material placed before the Settlement Commission was sufficient in the Court's opinion but whether the order suffers from an infirmity warranting judicial interference within narrow parameters recognised by law - The sufficiency, adequacy and evidentiary value of material placed before the Settlement Commission are matters within the domain of the Settlement Commission and the High Court cannot undertake re-appreciation of such material as if sitting in appeal. The absence of an appellate remedy against the order of the Settlement Commission does not enlarge the scope of judicial review and the exercise of such jurisdiction remains subject to well-settled limitations governing judicial review of orders passed by specialised statutory bodies. The Court declined interference with the impugned order – The Writ Petition is dismissed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page