9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... immunity from further proceedings on the ground that the main case has been settled before the Settlement Commission. Held that: - The decision in the case of Motilal Gupta[2016 (5) TMI 608 - CESTAT MUMBAI] relied by the Ld AR is one rendered by the single member bench of the Tribunal, where it was held that if the liability of the co-noticees arise from different act they will not get immunity from further proceeding. In the said case, the Tribunal in para 4.7 as well as 4.8 has given reasons for taking a different view from that laid in the case of SK Colombowala. The said view may be applicable to the facts of that case and I am not able to agree to the view expressed in the said paragraphs by the Ld. Single Member and more specifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are co-noticees in the original proceedings, which was settled by the main applicant Shri Kumar Utensils Ltd., before the Settlement Commission. 2. The Ld. Counsel on behalf of the appellants relied upon the judgment laid in S.K.Colombowala Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import) Mumbai[ 2007(220)ELT 492(Tri.Mum) and submitted that as the case against the main applicant before the Settlement Commission had been settled, the liabilities against the appellants herein have also to be considered as concluded. Against this, the Ld. AR submitted that the co-noticess having made pecuniary gain out of the alleged activities, they cannot be absolved from liability on the mere pretext that that main case has been settled before the Settlement Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt in S.K.Colombowala case is reproduced as under: 23. In the instant case, the case which was pending before the Commissioner who has passed the impugned order, was a show cause notice wherein the duty has been demanded from the importer M/s. Amrit Lakxmi Machine works and penal action was proposed against other co-noticees, under the provisions of Sec. 112 of the Customs Act. The final order of settlement passed by the Settlement Commission settled the case by determining the amount of duty payable and granted immunity to the importer and its director both from confiscation of goods as well as penal action. There is no finding in the said order of the Settlement Commission as to the liability of the imported goods to confiscation und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e proper officer who exercises jurisdiction over the case ceases to have any jurisdiction in relation to the case and it would be therefore, incongruous to hold that such an officer would continue to have jurisdiction qua other co-noticees, for the reason that such an interpretation would be against the plain language of Sec. 127F. 5. The above view expressed in the case of SK Colombowala was reiterated by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of HIM Logistics Pvt.Ltd Vs CCE New Delhi 2016(338)ELT721(Tri. Del). It is also to be mentioned that a Single Member bench of Tribunal Chennai had referred the issue to the Larger Bench and vide judgment reported in Rajesh Vs Commissioner of customs, Tuticorin [2013(298)ELT 540(Tri.Ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
