9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to the validity of Section 95(ii)(b) of the Finance Act, 1998 and rejection of application under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 by the Commissioner of Customs. Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the validity of Section 95(ii)(b) of the Finance Act, 1998, and the rejection of their application under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 by the Commissioner of Customs. However, during the final hearing, the petitioner withdrew the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 95(ii)(b) of the Finance Act, leaving the issue of whether the Commissioner of Customs was justified in rejecting the application under KVSS, 1998 as the sole matter for consideration. 2. The petitioner had imported three consignments of crude palm stearin in 1981 and sought clearance by paying duty under a specific heading. A dispute arose regarding the classification of the goods, leading to a writ petition in the Delhi High Court. Pending the petition, the goods were allowed to be cleared provisionally based on the petitioner's classification and furnishing a bond for the differential duty. 3. The Central Government introduced the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 during the pendency of the writ petition. The petitioner filed declarations under the scheme for the imported goods cleared as per the interim order of the Delhi High Court. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Customs rejected the application under KVSS, 1998, citing the absence of show-cause or demand notices at the time of filing the declarations, leading to the current writ petition. 4. During the proceedings, the petitioner withdrew the original writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court in 1981, further complicating the legal landscape of the case. 5. The Court referred to a previous judgment involving similar circumstances where it was held that the Commissioner was justified in rejecting declarations made under KVSS due to the absence of a determination of duty at the time of filing. The Court emphasized that without a final or provisional assessment order, the petitioner could not benefit from the scheme, as was the case in the present situation. 6. The petitioner relied on a decision of the Gujarat High Court, which the Court distinguished from the present case based on the crucial difference that in the Gujarat case, there was a determination of duty liability, unlike in the current scenario where no such determination existed. The absence of a demand notice and show-cause notice further differentiated the cases. 7. Ultimately, the Court found no fault in the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's application under KVSS, 1998, leading to the dismissal of the petition with no costs awarded. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, factual background, and the Court's reasoning behind the decision, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case.
|
