1999 (3) TMI 91 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside a decision rejecting a declaration under the KAR VIVAD SAMADHAN SCHEME, 1998.
2. Dismissal of appeal as time-barred and subsequent amendment to quash the order.
3. Show cause notice under the Customs Act, 1962, appeal against the order, and rejection of the application under the Scheme.
4. Interpretation of Section 95 of the Scheme regarding the applicability of the Scheme.
5. Consideration of the pendency of an appeal at the time of filing a declaration under the Scheme.
6. Requirement of proof of condonation of delay for late filing under the Scheme.
7. Analysis of the pendency of the appeal and the rejection of the declaration under the Scheme.
8. Quashing and setting aside the order rejecting the declaration and directing reconsideration in accordance with the law.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a petition seeking a writ to quash a decision rejecting a declaration under the KAR VIVAD SAMADHAN SCHEME, 1998. The petition was based on the rejection of the declaration by the first respondent and the request to dispose of the application under the provisions of the scheme. The appeal against the order was dismissed as time-barred, leading to an amendment to quash the order dated 9th December, 1998.
2. A show cause notice was served under the Customs Act, 1962, followed by an appeal against the order and subsequent rejection of the application under the Scheme. The timeline of events, including the communication of orders and the filing of appeals, was crucial in determining the validity of the appeal and the rejection of the declaration.
3. The interpretation of Section 95 of the Scheme was pivotal in assessing the applicability of the Scheme to the case at hand. The provision specified conditions under which the Scheme would not apply, emphasizing the importance of the pendency of appeals or references at the time of filing a declaration.
4. The consideration of whether an appeal was pending at the time of filing a declaration under the Scheme was a central issue. The petitioner argued that the appeal was indeed pending, while the respondents contended that the delay in filing the appeal rendered the application under the Scheme invalid.
5. The requirement of proof of condonation of delay for late filing under the Scheme was highlighted, with the respondents emphasizing the necessity of such proof for the application to be entertained. The timeline of events and the communication between the parties played a crucial role in this aspect.
6. The analysis delved into the pendency of the appeal, the rejection of the declaration, and the subsequent arguments regarding the competency and validity of the appeal under the law. The comparison with legal precedents and interpretations provided a comprehensive understanding of the issue at hand.
7. Ultimately, the judgment quashed the order rejecting the declaration and directed reconsideration in accordance with the law. The importance of the pendency of the appeal and the procedural requirements under the Scheme were reiterated in the final decision, emphasizing the need for a thorough assessment of the facts and legal provisions involved.