2015 (9) TMI 1140 - HC - Customs

Valuation of goods - Undervaluation of goods - Seizure of goods - Held that - Revenue was keen on supporting the allegation and based on which the show cause notice came to be issued. Whereas the applicant petitioner before us was not ready and willing to accept the same. If there was no settlement possible, then, the Commission should have relegated the petitioner to adjudication. The petitioner made the choice and if it does not want any settlement by application of mind by an independent commission to all the facets of the matter, then, there is no obligation on the Commission to assist him. We are of the opinion that there is some substance in the contention of Mr. Jetly. However, if the matter cannot be resolved eventually with the assistance of the record available with the Petitioner and the Department and based on which the show cause notice was issued, then, the best course was to relegate the matter to the Adjudicating Authority so as to adjudicate the show cause notice in accordance with law. - petitioner is also agreeable to the Revenue retaining a sum of ₹ 17,61,172/ towards duty but without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both sides. - Decided in favour of appellants.

Issues involved: Challenge to Settlement Commission's order based on worksheet submissions and comments from Revenue, alleged breach of natural justice, rejection of petitioner's worksheet for lack of supporting documents, disagreement on settlement terms, necessity of adjudication by Revenue.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to Settlement Commission's order: The petitioner challenged the Settlement Commission's order, arguing that the Commission heavily relied on worksheet submissions and comments from the Revenue without giving the petitioner an opportunity to respond. The petitioner contended that the worksheet was based on memory and lacked documentary evidence, leading to undervaluation issues. The petitioner sought an opportunity to offer comments on the Revenue's submissions before any final order was passed.

2. Alleged breach of natural justice: The petitioner raised concerns about the alleged breach of principles of natural justice by the Commission. The petitioner argued that fairness required the Commission to allow the petitioner to respond to the Revenue's submissions before imposing liabilities for custom duties and penalties based on those submissions.

3. Rejection of petitioner's worksheet: The Commission rejected the petitioner's worksheet for lack of supporting documents, leading to the Commission relying on the Revenue's contentions in the Show Cause Notice. The Commission observed discrepancies in the petitioner's submissions and noted the absence of original invoices, which resulted in the calculation of differential duty without proper documentation.

4. Disagreement on settlement terms: The petitioner and the Revenue had conflicting views on the settlement terms. While the Revenue believed the Commission had been fair and reasonable, the petitioner argued that the Commission should have allowed for a more comprehensive review of the matter before finalizing the settlement. The Court noted the differences in perspectives between the parties regarding the settlement process.

5. Necessity of adjudication by Revenue: The Court emphasized the importance of proper adjudication by the Revenue in cases where settlements are not feasible. It was observed that if a settlement was not possible due to conflicting positions of the petitioner and the Revenue, the matter should be referred back to the Adjudicating Authority for a thorough examination in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the High Court set aside the Settlement Commission's order and declared the settlement proceedings initiated by the Commission as having no legal effect. The Court directed the Revenue to adjudicate the show cause notice in accordance with the law, while keeping the contentions of the petitioner open. The Court clarified that it did not endorse any findings in the Settlement Commission's order and allowed the petition on the terms mentioned in the judgment.

← Previous Next →