9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thana Raja, J. Shri K. Ravi Anantha Padmanaban, SCGSC, for the Department. Shri K. Jayachandran, for the Assessee. ORDER With the consent of both sides, these writ petitions themselves are taken up for final disposal. In Writ Petition No. 2611 of 2012, the petitioner is the assessee and is the respondent in the other writ petition filed by the Revenue. As both the writ petitions are interconnected, they are taken up for disposal and a common order is passed. 2. The brief facts arising out of the writ petition are as under :- The petitioner/assessee in W.P. No. 2611 of 2012 imported a new Ferrari Car F430, Fi Coupe, classifiable under Chapter Heading 8703 24 91 of the Customs Tariff Act by Bill of Entry B.E. No. 918522, dated 23-12-2008 for assessment and clearance. The said car was imported for the personal use of the petitioner in W.P. No. 2611 of 2012. At the time of filing of Bill of Entry, the petitioner also filed all the requisite documents such as Bill of Lading, Invoice, etc. The petitioner declared the value of the car as 106000GBP. In the Bill of Entry, it was stated that by the petitioner that the said car is a brand new car and the same was assessed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he light of the above, the bench settles the case under Section 127C of the Customs Act, 1962 on the following terms and conditions : (1) The additional amount of Customs Duty is settled at Rs. 14,64,690/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Only) over and above the duty paid at the time of import. As the payment of Rs. 90,00,000/- has been made by them subsequently during investigation the settled amount of duty shall be appropriated from this amount. (2) The interest on the differential customs duty is settled at Rs. 2,32,413/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Four Hundred Thirteen only). This amount shall also be adjusted from the deposit of Rs. 90,00,000/- made by the applicant. Aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Commission, the Revenue filed the writ petition in W.P. No. 4451 of 2012. The petitioner/assessee also filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 2611 of 2012 requesting the court to give direction to the Commissioner of Customs (Sea Port-Import) to implement the order passed by the Settlement Commission so that he is entitled to the refund of the duty. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue vehemently contended that the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned counsel on either side and perused the documents on record. Before considering the merits of the case, this Court has to decide what are the circumstances under which the order of the Settlement Commission can be interfered. In the case of Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I. Tripathi and Others reported in (1993) 201 ITR 611, the Apex Court has considered under what circumstance the Courts can interfere with the order of the Settlement Commission and held as follows : The scope of enquiry, whether by High Court under Article 226 or by this Court under Article 136 is also the same whether the order of the Commission is contrary to any of the provisions of the Act and if so, has it prejudiced the petitioner/appellant apart from ground of bias, fraud and malice which, of course, constitute a separate and independent category. Reference in this behalf may be had to the decision of this Court in R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad and Fatechand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission (IT and WT) which too was an appeal against the orders of the Settlement Commission. Sabyasachi Mukharji, J., speaking for the Bench comprising himself and S.R. Pandian, J. observed that in such a case this Court is conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsing Notes of Chapter 87, a new imported vehicle that has not been manufactured/assembled in India, that has not been sold, leased or loaned prior to importation into India or has not been registered for use in any country according to the laws of that country, prior to importation into India. Thus it is alleged that the car in the said notes carried registration as one of the criterion for considering such car as a second-hand car. In this connection, the Bench has already found that the registration of the vehicle taken only for transit purpose cannot be considered as fulfilling the requirement of registration in terms of the Exemption Notification No. 21/2002, dated 1-3-2002. The Bench considers that the same principle would be equally applicable for considering the use of the term registered for the purpose of the said Licensing Notes. The Bench further notes that the invoice relied upon by the Revenue itself is termed New Vehicle Invoice . Further, the Bench finds that the invoice of M/s. HR. Owen Sports Cars Co., UK itself is addressed in the name of the applicant care of M/s. Hyperformance Co. UK. Hence the argument of Revenue that the vehicle is a second-hand vehicle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
