9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment Commission, Mumbai (the Settlement Commission), whereby the immunities granted to the petitioner in terms of Section 127H of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act) were withdrawn by exercise of powers under Section 127H(2) of the Act. 2. The petitioner approached the Settlement Commission in relation to dispute with the Director General of Foreign Trade. It is not necessary to refer to the interim proceedings that took place. Suffice it to state that on 19th October, 2004 the Settlement Commission passed final order No.57/2004-CUS settling the case by determining the liability of the petitioner at a sum of Rs.73,09,326.80. While passing the final order the petitioner was granted immunity against imposition of penalty and fine. In relation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... make payment by way of installments and while rejecting the same passed the impugned order withdrawing the immunity granted to the petitioner in exercise of powers under Section 127H(2) of the Act. 5. When the petition came up for admission it was made clear to the learned advocate for the petitioner that the Court may intervene provided the petitioner not only discharges its liability to pay the interest of Rs.23,56,651/- as directed by the Settlement Commission but also pays interest on such delayed payments. It is an accepted position between the parties that as on 10th December, 2005 the petitioner has made total payment of the outstanding amount of interest i.e. 23,56,651/-. 6. In these circumstances, the impugned order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement Commission to exercise its power of withdrawal of immunity under Section 127H(2) of the Act. In short, in each case, the matter has to be decided after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances peculiar to the case. The Court is not laying down any general proposition as such as to in what circumstance the said power can be or cannot be exercised. 8. In the present case, as the facts reveal, the Settlement Commission has not even heard the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 16th May, 2005. In the subsequent application seeking further extension of time and payment by way of installments the petitioner had categorically referred to its weak financial position and pendency of case before the BIFR. The pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the interest of justice, rate of 6% p.a. would be fair and reasonable. 10. The said amount as computed by the petitioner from 1st January, 2005 till date of payment viz. 10th December, 2005 comes to Rs.93,933/-. However, as the petitioner has sought time of 3-4 weeks for making the payment, to ensure that the remaining period also gets taken care of, it would be proper to round off the said amount to a figure of Rs.1,00,000/-. The petitioner is directed to make the payment of the said sum on or before 13th January, 2006. 11. Accordingly, the impugned order being Misc. Order No.2/CUS/2005 dated 16th May, 2005 (at Annexure-G to the petition) is hereby quashed and set aside and the final order made by the Settlement Commission shall r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
