2015 (10) TMI 1533 - HC - Customs

Appeal to settle the payment of duty Petitioner holds that the same is ready to pay the amount of differential duty along with interest within the prescribed time Revenue contends that they do not agree to settle the matter and amount being accepted in full and final settlement of all claims and have no objection if the impugned order is quashed and set aside Held That - It will not be proper to bind the petitioners in terms of this undertaking any longer and once the Revenue has not agreed to the proposal Order quashed and set aside and the application is restored for settlement - Matter remanded back to the Commissioner Decided in favour of the Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Undertaking filed by petitioners for settlement.
2. Disagreement by Revenue officials on settlement terms.
3. Quashing of impugned order and restoration of application before Settlement Commission.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners filed an undertaking on 16th July, 2015, agreeing to pay a specific amount demanded by the Revenue in relation to past consignments. The undertaking also sought immunity from prosecution and penalties under the Customs Act, 1962, upon payment within four weeks.

2. Despite the petitioners' readiness to settle, the Revenue officials, through Mr. Bharati, expressed disagreement with the settlement terms. The Revenue did not agree to accept the amount offered by the petitioners in full and final settlement of their claims. Instead, they proposed to quash the impugned order and refer the matter back to the Settlement Commission for further review and decision.

3. The High Court, after considering the arguments of both sides, concluded that since the Revenue did not agree to the settlement proposed by the petitioners, it would not be appropriate to bind the petitioners to their undertaking. The Court clarified that the petitioners were free to raise all their contentions before the Court and the Settlement Commission. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order dated 20th May, 2014, and reinstated the petitioners' application for settlement for fresh adjudication by the Settlement Commission in accordance with the law.

4. The judgment allowed the writ petition in favor of the petitioners, with no order as to costs. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the petitioners' right to present their case fully before the Settlement Commission, without being restricted by the earlier undertaking or statements made in Court.