9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 822X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he name and style of M/s.Nitish Tools Private Limited and Smt.M.Thenmozhi & M/s.Rukmani Explosives. Smt.M.Thenmozhi is the wife of Mr.C.Manoharan, (Petitioner in W.P.No.12795 of 2015) and she is the Managing Director of M/s.Nitish Tools Private Limited. M/s.Rukmani Explosives, who is also one of the noticees, is not a party in these Writ Petitions. The notice alleged under valuation of carbide tips and hollow drill rods imported by Nitish Tools Private Limited and the petitioner in W.P.No.12794 of 2015, Shree Sai Enterprises. After setting out the facts, it was proposed to reject the value of the carbide tips and hollow drill rods as mentioned in the bills of entry and differential duty was demanded with proposal to impose penalty. On receipt of the show cause notice, all the four noticees except M/s.Rukmani Explosives, filed separate applications before the Settlement Commission on 26.03.2014 under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962 (Act). The applications were numbered as S.A.(Cus) No.15 to 19/2014-SC. The receipt of the applications were acknowledged by the office of the Settlement Commission vide acknowledgement, dated 26.03.2014. Thereafter, by proceedings, dated 02.04.2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Commission to adjourn the matter. The next hearing date was fixed after more than one month on 19.12.2014. One day prior to the hearing date, the Petitioner M/s.Shree Sai Enterprises submitted a letter requesting for postponement of the personal hearing. The Commission declined to consider the said request and proceeded to consider the matter and by order, dated 29.12.2014, held that due to lack of cooperation on the part of the applicant, the matter has to be sent back to the Commissioner of Customs for adjudication. This order is impugned in these Writ Petitions. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Commission without affording opportunity to the petitioner and without taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, erroneously passed the impugned order and prayed that the order be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the Commission. It was the endeavour of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to convince this Court that the said application for settlement having been allowed to be proceeded with and intimated to the petitioner on 10.04.2014, it has to be seen as to whether there was any matter pending bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relating to him make an application, before adjudication to the Settlement Commission to have the case settled, in such form and in such manner as may be specified by rules, and containing a full and true disclosure of his duty liability which has not been disclosed before the proper officer, the manner in which such liability has been incurred, the additional amount of customs duty accepted to be payable by him and such other particulars as may be specified by rules including the particulars of such dutiable goods in respect of which he admits short levy on account of misclassification, under-valuation or inapplicability of exemption notification but excluding the goods not included in the entry made under this Act and such application shall be disposed of in the manner hereinafter provided : 6. In terms of the above provision in an application filed under Section 127B of the Act, the applicant is required to make a full and true disclosure of his duty liability, which he had failed to disclose before the proper officer, he is required to explain to the Settlement Commission, the manner in which such liability has been incurred; the additional amount of customs duty accepted to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s placed on record, it is evidently clear that the petitioner failed to cooperate in the disposal of the matter. 8. As already pointed out, the Commission acknowledged the receipt of the applications filed on 26.03.2014. Immediately thereafter, that is within a period of about one week, notice for proceeding with the application was sent to the petitioner calling upon him to answer various queries one among them was whether any case is pending in the Appellate Tribunal or any Court. The reply which is expected to be given by an applicant is a simple Yes or No . In the event, if the reply is Yes , he has to disclose about the case, which is pending. However, the reply given by the petitioner is not a straight forward reply, but by stating that pertaining to the show cause notice, which is subject matter of settlement application, no appeal has been filed, is pending before the Appellate Authority or Tribunal or Court and this is the first time, the petitioner has filed the Settlement Application before the forum. The reply given obviously does not answer the specific query in a direct fashion. 9. Be that as it may, the Commission allowed the matter to be proceeded with and sent no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
