2015 (6) TMI 949 - AT - Customs

Restoration of appeal - Dismissal of of appeal for failure to make pre deposit - Held that - Customs have reopened the matter on a different issue of valuation after the Settlement Commission had passed its final order. In terms of Section 127J every order of the Settlement Commission is conclusive and no matter covered by such order shall be reopened in any proceedings under the Customs Act or under any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, we find the decisions of Customs authorities in re-opening the case as questionable. However, since the appeal before Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was dismissed for non-compliance of the provision of Section 129 of the Act, we find it appropriate to remand the appeal itself back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act for failing to deposit the required amount.
2. Reopening of the case on a different valuation issue after the Settlement Commission's final order.
3. Conclusiveness of Settlement Commission's orders under Section 127J of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal dismissing the case due to non-compliance with Section 129E, which mandates a deposit of Rs. 10,00,000. The case involved the seizure of imported machinery under the EPCG Scheme, with subsequent show cause notices issued. The Settlement Commission's final order settled the initial show cause notice, but another notice was issued later by the Additional Commissioner for undervaluation.

Issue 2: The Tribunal found the Customs' decision to reopen the case on a different valuation issue post the Settlement Commission's order questionable. Section 127J establishes the conclusiveness of Settlement Commission orders, barring reopening under the Customs Act or any other law. Despite this, the appeal was remanded back to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication without insisting on a pre-deposit.

Issue 3: The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to reexamine the case without requiring a pre-deposit, focusing on the provisions of "Settlement of Cases" under Chapter XIVA of the Customs Act. The stay application was allowed, and the appeal was disposed of through remand, emphasizing a thorough review on merits without the pre-deposit condition.

This judgment highlights the significance of procedural compliance, the binding nature of Settlement Commission orders, and the need for fair adjudication without unnecessary financial barriers, ensuring a just and comprehensive review of the case on its merits.