Order L.N. Reddy, J. 1. Petitioner is in the field of steel re-rolling and is under obligation to pay excise duty on the product manufactured by it. On 25.03.1998, respondent No. 1 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner stating that 3766.665 metric tonnes of mild steel was found to have been procured from third parties and excise duty of Rs. 56,40,471/- is payable thereon. The names of the agencies from which the steel is said to have been procured, were also indicated. The petitioner decided to avail the relief before the Settlement Commission (for short 'the Commission') constituted under Section 32 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act'). Accordingly, an application in the prescribed form was filed on 19.12.2000. The petitioner admitted its liability to the extent of Rs. 23,04,650/- and paid the amount and claimed immunity as regards the balance. 2. On its part, the Commission called for a report from the Commissioner (Investigation) and the report was received on 27.06.2001. Taking the same into account, the Commission passed an order, dated 23.10.2001, refusing to grant any relief and requiring the petitioner to avail the remedies under the Act. Hence, this writ petition. 3. The petitioner contends that the show cause notice itself was issued on the basis of imagination and with a view to get the matter settled, it has offered to pay a sum of Rs. 23,04,650/- and still, the Commission did not grant any relief. It is urged that the Commission took into account, the report dated 27.06.2001, filed by the Commissioner, without even furnishing a copy of the same to it, much less giving an opportunity to explain the facts mentioned therein. 4. Respondent No. 1 filed a counter-affidavit opposing the writ petition. According to him, the Commission has the discretion either to grant the relief or to require the party to avail the remedies and that no exception can be taken to the order under challenge. It is also pleaded that the report submitted by the Commissioner is only for the guidance of the Commission and the petitioner has no right to insist on furnishing a copy thereof to him. 5. The Commission is constituted with a view to add finality to the proceedings in which fairly large stakes are involved. It is also pleaded that the report submitted by the Commissioner is only for the guidance of the Commission and the petitioner has no right to insist on furnishing a copy thereof to him. 5. The Commission is constituted with a view to add finality to the proceedings in which fairly large stakes are involved. In a given case, the manufacturer may himself come forward to agree for a particular course of action, instead of litigating the matter for years together. The matters before the Commission are mostly in the form of the conciliation in such a way that the interests of the Revenue on the one hand and the manufacturer on the other are protected. The consequences of long pending disputes are also taken into account. On the relief being granted by the Commission, the manufacturer stands relieved from the liability to be prosecuted or from other penal consequences. 6. A perusal of the relevant provisions of the Act indicates that the Commission can refuse to grant relief in case it comes to the conclusion that the manufacturer is not extending cooperation. Such non-cooperation need not be in the form of non-appearance before it. It can be even as regards disclosure of the relevant information. 7. The Commission, in the instant case, arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner is not extended the cooperation by undertaking comparison of the facts and figures mentioned in the application on the one hand, and those in the report submitted by the Commissioner, on the other. This could have been certainly appreciated if only the Commission furnished a copy of the report to the petitioner enabling it to offer its own remarks. When the investigation is into the affairs of the petitioner, the only party which is immediately affected is the petitioner itself. Whatever may be the entitlement of any other agency to receive copy of such report, an agency which is immediately affected cannot be denied a copy thereof. If the report is so inaccessible or confidential for that very reason, it should be kept outside the purview of the adjudication also. 8. We are of the view that the order of the Commission suffers from a serious infirmity on account of non-furnishing of the report of the Commissioner to the petitioner. On this short ground, we allow the writ petition and set aside the order under challenge. 8. We are of the view that the order of the Commission suffers from a serious infirmity on account of non-furnishing of the report of the Commissioner to the petitioner. On this short ground, we allow the writ petition and set aside the order under challenge. The matter is remanded to the Commission for fresh disposal after a copy of the report of the Commissioner (Investigation) is furnished to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. The miscellaneous applications if any filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of.