2015 (12) TMI 478 - SC - Customs

Benefit of an exemption Notification - respondent approached the Settlement Commission under Section 127B of the Customs Act - Settlement Commission rejected the application of the respondent on the ground that it was not maintainable - Held that - There were many other similarly situated persons who had also filed their writ petitions as in their cases also, the Settlement Commission had rejected the applications. All these writ petitions are decided by the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court of Bombay. The High Court has, after straightening certain aspects of law, remitted the cases back to the Settlement Commission for fresh decision in accordance with the legal position explained by the High Court. - Since the High Court has merely remitted the case back to the Settlement Commission for fresh decision and in all other cases, the decision has been taken by the Settlement Commission, leaving the question of law open, it is not necessary to interfere with the impugned order. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Benefit of exemption Notification and non-payment of import duty
2. Settlement Commission's rejection of application
3. High Court's remittance of cases back to Settlement Commission
4. Failure of respondent to approach Settlement Commission

Analysis:
1. The respondent imported raw material, claiming exemption from import duty under a Notification, intending to use it for manufacturing goods for export. However, the respondent sold the raw material in the open market instead of utilizing it as stated. Subsequently, the Department initiated proceedings to recover the import duty. The respondent then sought relief from the Settlement Commission under Section 127B of the Customs Act, which was rejected due to the facts of the case.

2. Several similarly situated persons, including the respondent, challenged the Settlement Commission's decisions through writ petitions in the High Court of Bombay. The High Court, after clarifying legal aspects, remanded the cases to the Settlement Commission for reconsideration based on the clarified legal position. The Revenue's counsel mentioned that other petitioners had approached the Settlement Commission post the High Court's judgment, but the respondent had not done so.

3. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had sent the cases back to the Settlement Commission for fresh decisions, while other petitioners had already received decisions from the Commission based on the High Court's clarification. As the High Court had not conclusively decided the legal issues and merely remanded the cases, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order without interference. The appeal was dismissed, with a clear directive that the respondent must approach the Settlement Commission within three months; otherwise, their right to do so would be forfeited.

4. The judgment emphasizes the importance of compliance with legal procedures and timely actions, particularly in matters involving Settlement Commission proceedings. It underscores the significance of approaching the appropriate authorities within the specified time frame to safeguard one's rights and interests in legal proceedings, as failure to do so may result in adverse consequences, such as forfeiture of the right to seek relief.