9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1212 - HC - CustomsMaintainability of Settlement Commission application of Co-noticee - Imposition of penalty u/s 112(A) of Customs Act - scope of Section 127(B)(1) of the Customs Act - case of the Respondents is that the SCN dated 10.05.2006 was issued to the Petitioner for the limited purposes of imposing penalty under Section 112(A) of the Customs Act and that such demand for penalty does not come within the scope of Section 127(B)(1) of the Customs Act - HELD THAT - It is clear that a common show cause notice dated 10.05.2006 was issued to M/s.Sri Devi Extractions Private Limited, Sri Vijay Jhavesr, Sri J.Kaviyarasan and Khader Nawaz, namely, the Petitioner herein. It is also the admitted position that the primary Applicant and other co-noticee approached the Settlement Commission and the said Application was admitted and settled vide Admission-cum-Final Order No.52/2006-Cus. dated 28.08.2006. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in the case of MAHARAJA CARGO VERSUS CUS. C. EX. SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CHENNAI 2014 (11) TMI 1103 - MADRAS HIGH COURT 2014 (11) TMI 1103 - MADRAS HIGH COURT are squarely applicable to the facts of present case, where it was held that when the Application of the main Applicant is admitted by the Commission, the Application of the co-noticee should also be entertained so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The Application of the Petitioner for settlement should also be taken up for hearing and decided on merits - Petition allowed.
Issues involved:
Petitioner's application for settlement under Section 127(B)(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 rejected by Settlement Commission - Challenge to the rejection order - Maintainability of the settlement application - Compliance with disclosure requirements - Admissibility of the settlement application - Interpretation of relevant legal provisions - Application of settled judgments in similar cases. Analysis: 1. Rejection of Settlement Application: The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash the rejection order of the Settlement Commission dated 17.11.2006 concerning the petitioner's application for settlement under Section 127(B)(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner contended that he had no involvement in the procurement of a controversial DEPB license and that the importer had already accepted duty liability. The respondents argued that the petitioner did not reply to the Show Cause Notice and approached the Settlement Commission without exhausting remedies. The court noted that a common Show Cause Notice was issued to all parties involved, and the primary applicant's settlement application had been admitted and settled. The court found that the rejection of the petitioner's application was not justified based on the facts and legal precedents cited. 2. Compliance with Legal Requirements: The respondents claimed that the petitioner failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 127(B)(1) as he did not disclose additional duty or submit necessary documents like the Bill of Entry. The court considered the counter affidavit stating that the petitioner did not respond to the Show Cause Notice and filed the settlement application independently without relevant documents. However, the court emphasized the importance of considering the common cause of action and cited judgments allowing co-noticees to maintain settlement applications to avoid multiple proceedings. 3. Application of Legal Precedents: The petitioner's counsel referred to specific judgments such as IN RE: RAJDOOT ROAD CARRIERS P. LTD. and others to support the contention that co-noticees should be allowed to maintain settlement applications arising from the same cause of action. The court agreed with this argument and held that the petitioner's application should be considered on its merits, especially since the primary applicant's application had been admitted and settled. The court concluded that the rejection of the petitioner's application was unjust and ordered the Settlement Commission to review the petitioner's application within three months. 4. Final Decision: The High Court allowed the Writ Petition, quashed the rejection order dated 17.11.2006, and directed the First Respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's Settlement Application on its merits within three months. The court emphasized providing a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing to the petitioner. No costs were awarded in the matter, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed. This detailed analysis highlights the key legal arguments, factual background, interpretations of legal provisions, and the court's decision in the case.
|
