2019 (5) TMI 1939 - HC - Customs

Utility of demanding and insisting for revenue neutral demands - settlement commissioner instead of addressing to it has gone on altogether an alien issue which would not in fact amounting to examining the proposal for settlement and that has rendered final order of the settlement commission vulnerable - HELD THAT - The settlement commissioner ought to have adverted to the emphasis laid upon the revenue neutrality in the submission and it was expected of giving its reason thereon, lack thereof would prima facie amounts to non application of mind qua the prayer for settlement on the permissible ground. By ad-interim-relief, the respondents shall be restrained from taking any precipitative action pursuant to the order impugned in this petition.

Summary

Issues:
Settlement Commission's failure to address revenue neutrality in the submission made by the petitioner leading to a vulnerable final order.

Analysis:
The High Court, comprising S.R. Brahmbhatt and V.B. Mayani, JJ., heard the case where the petitioner's counsel highlighted the Settlement Commission's oversight in addressing the issue of revenue neutrality in the submission made by the petitioner. The counsel argued that the Settlement Commissioner had veered off to an unrelated matter, thereby not properly examining the proposal for settlement, which rendered the final order of the commission dated 20.12.2018 vulnerable. The Court, on a prima facie view, observed that the Settlement Commissioner should have considered the emphasis on revenue neutrality in the submission and provided reasons for it. The lack of such consideration amounted to a failure in applying the mind regarding the prayer for settlement on permissible grounds.

The Court concluded that the Settlement Commissioner's failure to address the issue of revenue neutrality as highlighted in the petitioner's submission was a significant oversight. As a result, the Court decided that an ad-interim relief was necessary to prevent the respondents from taking any hasty actions based on the impugned order in the petition. The Court directed that direct service be permitted concerning respondent no. 3, indicating a need for proper communication and adherence to legal procedures in the case.

In summary, the High Court's judgment focused on the Settlement Commission's failure to address the crucial aspect of revenue neutrality in the petitioner's submission, leading to a vulnerable final order. The Court emphasized the importance of considering all relevant grounds for settlement and ensuring that the Settlement Commissioner applies due diligence in examining such submissions. The decision to grant ad-interim relief and restrain the respondents from precipitative actions underscores the Court's commitment to upholding fair and thorough legal processes in settlement matters.