9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 1102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icants. Penalty imposed on company as well as co-applicant - Held that: - This would require reconsideration in the light of the fact that already redemption fine has been imposed. Hence, to that extent, the impugned order calls for interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed and the findings of the settlement commission insofar as it relates to penalty in Paragraph 15.1(d), (e) and (f) are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Settlement Commission for fresh consideration, to consider as to whether there is need for imposition of penalty on the company as well as the Directors of the Company. The petitioner has fully cooperated before the Officer as well as the Settlement Commission and paid the demand raised and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce. The application was allowed to be proceeded with vide order F. No. S.A.Cus/28-30/2012-SC, dated 8-5-2012. 4. The Jurisdictional Commissioner, by its report dated 13-6-2012 submitted that the contention of the petitioner/applicant that payment of lesser duty was not intentional was an incorrect statement and pointed out at the modus operandi of the petitioner to evade Customs duty. Further, the Commissioner stated that interest in the case was charged under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962. The Settlement Commission, after hearing the parties held that the applicant as well as co-applicants were involved in the complicity of the commission of offence relating to the evasion of customs duty; however, noted that they deposited a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of India and others reported in (2010) Supreme Court Cases 733 held that it is the case, where the Commission should not have granted any benefit to the petitioner, however, the order was passed after taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances and therefore, there is no error in the order. Further it is contended that an order passed by the Settlement Commission could not be interfered with, if only the order has contravened any provisions of the Act. Insofar as the findings of the fact recorded, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it is not open for examination either by the High Court or Supreme Court. In support of such contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n fine in the light of the fact that there is admission by the co-applicants before DRI that the value admitted was less than actual value under import. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners cannot be heard to state that the market survey should be conducted in the light of the candid admission of applicants. 9. However, finding of the Commission insofar as the penalty imposed on the company as well as on the co-applicant is concerned, the Bench has not specifically recorded any finding. This in my view, would require reconsideration in the light of the fact that already redemption fine has been imposed. Hence, to that extent, the impugned order calls for interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
