2010 (9) TMI 300 - HC - Customs

Recovery of duty drawback settlement commission - jurisdiction in proceeding for recovery of drawback - duty drawback or claim for duty drawback is nothing but a claim for refund of duty - Held that - Settlement Commission had jurisdiction to deal with the question relating to the recovery of drawback erroneously paid by the Revenue. Petition is, thus, liable to be dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission to settle proceedings initiated for recovery of duty drawback.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to Settlement Commission's jurisdiction
The petitioner, Union of India, challenged the Settlement Commission's jurisdiction to settle the proceedings initiated for the recovery of duty drawback. The respondents, instead of responding to the show-cause notice, filed an application before the Commission for settlement. The Revenue objected to the Commission's jurisdiction, arguing that such cases did not fall within the definition of 'case' under the Customs Act. The Special Bench ruled in favor of the Settlement Commission's jurisdiction, leading to the settlement of the case at a duty liability of Rs. 2,07,71,436 with interest. The petitioner contended that the Commission erred in interpreting the jurisdiction to settle cases related to duty drawback erroneously paid. They argued that the Commission should not have entertained the application as the primary requirements under the Act were not met.

Issue 2: Interpretation of duty drawback
The Settlement Commission considered the definition of 'case' under the Act and various judgments to conclude that it had jurisdiction to deal with the application for settlement. They referred to the concept of duty drawback as a remission of duty based on statutory provisions. The Commission's decision was supported by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in previous cases. The Court concurred with the Commission's view, emphasizing that duty drawback is a claim for refund of duty under statutory schemes or provisions of the Act.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the Settlement Commission's jurisdiction to deal with the recovery of duty drawback erroneously paid by the Revenue. The Court dismissed the petition challenging the Commission's jurisdiction, citing alignment with the legal principles established by the Supreme Court. The ruling emphasized the nature of duty drawback as a remission of duty based on statutory provisions, supporting the Settlement Commission's authority in such cases.