2014 (11) TMI 1043 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction of Settlement Commission - scope of the term Case - petitioner contends that the pendency of an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), does not bar the Settlement Commission from exercising jurisdiction as the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh, is neither a Tribunal nor a Court. - Held that - The expression before adjudication necessarily refers to an adjudication by the assessing authority, thus, clearly postulating that where adjudication by the assessing authority has concluded, jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission to entertain such an application, is barred. Admittedly, the adjudicating authority has concluded adjudication. The Settlement Commission, therefore, had no jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner s application and has rightly rejected the application summarily. The petitioner s submission based upon the first proviso to Section 127B or that his application has been rejected as his appeal was pending is irrelevant as the Settlement Commission has not been dismissed the application on the ground of pendency of the appeal etc. - Decided against the appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the application filed before the Settlement Commission.

Analysis:
The primary issue in this case revolved around the maintainability of the application filed by the petitioner before the Settlement Commission. The petitioner contended that the order passed by the Commission was erroneous as it failed to consider the definition of "case" as per Section 127A of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner argued that the Commission was required to entertain the application based on previous orders granting relief to similarly situated persons. Additionally, the petitioner highlighted that the application was summarily dismissed without granting an opportunity of hearing, contrary to the provisions of the Act. The petitioner also emphasized that the pendency of an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) did not bar the Commission from exercising jurisdiction.

The respondents, on the other hand, argued that since adjudication had already concluded, the Settlement Commission was prohibited by Section 127B of the Act from entertaining the application. They contended that the petitioner's arguments regarding the definition of "case" or the appeal's pendency were irrelevant as the application was rejected based on the conclusion of adjudication. The respondents pointed out that in cases where adjudication had not concluded, the Commission had intervened and granted relief.

Upon careful consideration, the Court examined Section 127B of the Act, which outlined the procedure for settlement of cases before the Settlement Commission. The Court noted that the application must be filed "before adjudication," indicating that once adjudication by the assessing authority has concluded, the Commission's jurisdiction to entertain such an application is barred. The Court also referred to the definition of "adjudicating authority" under Section 2(1) of the Act, which excludes the Settlement Commission. Since adjudication had concluded in this case, the Court concluded that the Commission rightly rejected the petitioner's application. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments and consequently dismissed the petitions.

In conclusion, the Court's judgment centered on the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Customs Act, specifically Section 127B, to determine the maintainability of the application before the Settlement Commission. The Court clarified the conditions under which the Commission could entertain such applications and emphasized the importance of filing before adjudication. Ultimately, the Court upheld the Commission's decision to reject the petitioner's application due to the concluded adjudication, highlighting the significance of procedural compliance in such matters.