9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 609X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned order dated 28 September, 2012, the Settlement Commission has rejected the application for settlement made by the petitioners for settling their dues under the Act inter alia holding that there was failure to make full and true disclosure and non-cooperation on the part of the petitioners. In the circumstances, the case was sent to the Commissioner of Customs for the purpose of adjudication. 3. Briefly the facts leading to this petition are : (a) In December, 2006, the petitioners had imported a barge claiming the benefit of Notification No. 27/2002-Cus., dated 1 March, 2002. The Bill of Entry filed by the petitioners was provisionally assessed pending re-export of the barge. The value of the barge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest and prosecution should be extended to the petitioners. (e) During the course of proceedings before the Settlement Commission, the petitioners were asked by the Commission to produce the purchase invoice of the owner of the barge from whom the petitioners had taken the barge on lease. The petitioners did produce the commercial invoice dated 11 November, 2006 issued by the lessor of the vessel declaring the price of the barge at US $ 64.40 lakhs. However, the Settlement Commission was not satisfied with the same and insisted that the purchase invoice by the foreign exporter should be produced. The petitioners did not produce the same as it was their case that the amount demanded from them by the Customs Depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Settlement Commission. In any view of the matter, Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that they have now been able to obtain the purchase invoice of the concerned barge dated 16 August, 2006 from the foreign lessor of the barge which shows the value of the vessel at US $ 17.50 lakhs. The same can now be considered by the Settlement Commission. 5. As against the above, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the Revenue, submits that the order of the Settlement Commission is a well-reasoned order and there is no reason why this Court should interfere with the order in exercise of judicial review. It is emphasised that in spite of repeated demands made by the Settlement Commission, the petitioners had not produced the purch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e duty liability and interest as demanded in the show cause notice has been paid by the assessee, it is not possible for the Settlement Commission to conclude that the petitioners have not cooperated or not disclosed full and true facts in their application for settlement. However, it must be pointed out that in the facts existing in the above case, the Court held that the revenue was unable to point out what cooperation has not been extended. 7. In this case, we are of the view that as the invoice dated 16 August, 2006 has now been produced before us but not before the Settlement Commission on the petitioners' advocate raising a legal issue that the same is not relevant for the purpose of settling the dispute. Thus, the entire issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
