9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 763X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commission is erroneous and illegal and the Settlement Commission clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the appropriation - We quash and set aside the order of the Settlement Commission to the limited extent of imposition of fine and the appropriation - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Writ Petition No.1979 OF 2013 - - - Dated:- 10-8-2015 - S.C. Dharmadhikari G.S. Kulkarni, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. J.C. Patel i/b Mr. Sagar V. Kasar For the Respondent : Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra, Mr. Sujay Kantawalla with Mr. Brijesh Pathak ORDER P.C: 1. The Settlement Commission has passed an order on 2232013, copy of which is at AnnexureD (page 81) and the order has been assailed before us to the extent o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... executed the Bonds before the authorities and not the petitioner/original applicant No.2. The second respondent failed to appreciate that the vehicles in question were seized from the possession of the third respondent. They were provisionally released to him on execution of Bonds and Bank Guarantees. The same were executed by the third respondent and therefore any direction of this nature is unsustainable in law. The direction, therefore, could not have been issued. If at all there was any liability, it was on the third respondent and not the petitioner. 3. Upon such a contention which was raised on the earlier occasion and after hearing the petitioner for some time, we had called upon Mr. Mishra, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat applicant No.2 had brought the said vehicles for the purpose of selling the same on behalf of the importers and had informed applicant No.1 that the vehicles are properly duty paid. The argument then was that applicant No.1 was only a dealer and acted as an agent for the purpose of sale of the vehicles on the request of applicant No.2. The stand of applicant No.1 is extensively noted by the Settlement Commission in para (ii). The seizure of the vehicles and their release on Bonds is then narrated and thereafter what had been brought to the notice of the Settlement Commission is payment of certain amounts styled as differential duty. The proceedings before the Settlement Commission also refer to a statement of applicant No.2 wherein he s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w cause notice, an amount of ₹ 8,26,116/was paid towards the differential duty. Both the applicants have admitted the allegations in the show cause notice. However, as far as short payment of duty and payment of differential duty are concerned, the responsibility has been owned by applicant No.1/respondent No.3 before us. The Commission only noted that the acts of applicant No.2 and the coapplicant have rendered the goods liable to confiscation and penalty. This part of the order of the Settlement Commission has not been assailed before us. These conclusions are recorded in paragraphs 33 and 34. However, in paragraph 35 the direction with regard to fine and reproduced, as above, has only been impugned. 7. We find from a reading of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
