9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) in terms of Final Order No. 51/2004-Cus., dated 11-10-2004 of the Settlement Commission. 2. The facts of the case are covered in full detail in the Final Order dated 11-10-2004 (supra). The facts relevant for this order are that the respondent had misdeclared the correct Model and Year of manufacture of the car imported under the Transfer of Residence Rules with an intent to evade customs duty by means of undervaluation. According to the Revenue the year of manufacture of the car was 2002. 3. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent on 21-4-2004 by the Dy. Commissioner of Customs (Import) proposing modification in year of manufacture, enhancement of assessable value, confiscation of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai assisted by Shri A.G. More, Superintendent. The respondent was represented by Shri M.H. Patil, Advocate. S/Shri D.H. Nadkarni, M. Fernandes and Ms. Aparna H. Advocates were also present. 6. The representative of the Revenue submitted that in the light of Final Order dated 11-10-2004 of the Settlement Commission, the Commissioner (Import) reviewed the file and sought relevant details from M/s. Toyota Motor Corporation, Japan for verification of the particulars of the said car. As per the said verification report dated 7-12-2004 the authenticated month and year of manufacture of the said car is 31st January 2003. Hence it was prayed that immunity granted to the applicant vide Paras 12 and 13 of the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Final Order has been passed by the Settlement Commission and earlier investigations had been already finalized by the Revenue. (iii) Following case laws were also relied upon - (a) Chawla Enterprises Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (ACC), New Delhi reported in 2004 (175) E.L.T. 61 (Delhi) holding that High Court is concerned with only the illegality of the procedure followed and not the validity of the order i.e. Judicial Review is concerned not with the decisions but the decision making process. This also took into account the provisions of Section 127J which states that every order passed under Section 127C(7) shall be conclusive. In the present case the legality of the decision making process cannot be questioned. (b) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal v. Commissioner of Customs, Sheva reported in 2003 (159) E.L.T. 161 (Tri-Mumbai) holding that Revenue could not take advantage of its own wrong. In the present case this is exactly what Revenue is seeking to achieve by way of filing Review Application. 8. The Bench has gone through the submissions made by the Revenue and the respondent. As the direction given on 10-3-2005 to produce the original report dated 7-12-2004 had not been complied with till 4-4-2005 the Secretariat directed the Revenue to submit a duly authenticated copy of the letter received from M/s. Toyota Motor Corporation, Japan dated 7-10-2004 vide its letter dated 5-4-2005 followed by further reminders dated 30-5-2005 and 18-7-2005. It is observed that ample opportu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der dated 11-10-2004 and is seeking to improve on its investigations and enquiries which lead to the issue of the Show Cause Notice dated 21-4-2004. This can neither be allowed nor permitted, specially looking to the belligerent stand taken by Revenue not to implement the Final Order dated 11-10-2004. This too in the face of the statutory provision of Section 127J of the Act which states that the Final Orders passed under Section 127C of the Act are conclusive and final. The various case laws relied upon by the respondent are very relevant and to the point. 9. Accordingly, the Bench finds no merit in the review application filed by the Revenue and rejects the same. The Final Order dated 11-10-2004 cannot be reviewed by the Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Imports Exports Div., M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motor confirming the aforementioned facts. Since M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd., are authorized distributors of Toyota vehicles in India, the authenticity of their communication is beyond doubt. (Emphasis supplied). 12. In the Show Cause Notice dated 21-4-2004 the Revenue has relied upon the aforesaid letter dated 23-2-2004 to hold that the correct year of manufacture of the car was December 2002. In the Review Application the Revenue has sought to rely on fresh evidence collected by conducting further investigations subsequent to the settlement of the case and have claimed that the correct year of manufacture of the car now is January 2003. This clearly implies that the Revenue itself ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
