Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2015 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 197 - HC - CustomsApplication for Settlement Bar as per section 127B(1) and 123(2) Revenue contended that application filed by respondent for settlement of its case could not have been entertained by Settlement Commission because there was express bar contained in third proviso to Section 127B(1) of Customs Act, 1962 Held that - plain reading of third proviso to Section 127B(1), it is evident that no application for settlement can be made if it relates to goods to which Section 123 applies Section 123(2) specifically provides that said Section applies to, gold Therefore, clear that when two provisions are read together, no application under Section 127B(1) can be made in relation to gold Respondent made application, nevertheless, to Settlement Commission which has entertained same and has also rejected plea raised by Revenue that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain such application Thus, Settlement Commission did not have jurisdiction to entertain such application as there was complete bar as per Section 127B(1) read with Section 123 For all said reasons, impugned order passed by Settlement Commission is without jurisdiction and is set aside Decided in favour of revenue.
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission to entertain an application under Section 127B relating to goods covered under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: The High Court was approached by the Revenue seeking the quashing of an order passed by the Settlement Commission under Section 127C(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent had brought gold into India and made an application for settlement under Section 127B of the Act. The main contention raised was that the Settlement Commission lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application due to the express bar in the third proviso to Section 127B(1) read with Section 123 of the Act. The Court noted that the third proviso clearly prohibits applications for settlement in cases related to goods covered under Section 123, which includes gold. Despite this, the Settlement Commission entertained the application, prompting the Revenue to challenge the jurisdictional aspect. The Court examined the relevant provisions of Section 127B(1) and Section 123 of the Act. It emphasized that the third proviso to Section 127B(1) restricts the Settlement Commission from entertaining applications concerning goods falling under Section 123, such as gold. The Court highlighted that the respondent's case involved gold, making it ineligible for settlement under Section 127B. The Court agreed with the Revenue's argument that the Settlement Commission lacked jurisdiction to consider the application due to the clear statutory bar outlined in the provisions. The respondent attempted to rely on previous court decisions to support their position, but the Court distinguished those cases by emphasizing that the issue of Section 123's applicability had not been addressed in those judgments. The Court clarified that the third proviso to Section 127B(1) specifically prohibits applications related to goods covered under Section 123, like gold. Therefore, the rejection of the Revenue's plea by the Settlement Commission was deemed legally incorrect. The Court concluded that the impugned order by the Settlement Commission was without jurisdiction and set it aside, allowing the writ petition filed by the Revenue.
|