9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Department - SCN proposes to reject the value declared by the petitioner and fix the actual value of the goods and also confiscate the same in terms of Section 111(d) & (m) of the Act and proposes to impose penalty against the importers. The petitioner is entitled to maintain the application before the Commission as there is a SCN for confiscation and it would fall within the definition of caseas defined u/s 127-A(b) of the Act. The matter is remanded to the Settlement Commission for fresh consideration - petition allowed. - W.P.No.11132 of 2008 M.P.No.1 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 13-4-2018 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.S.Murugappan For the Respondents : Mr.V.Sundareswaran Senior Panel Counsel OR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, Appellate Tribunal or any other authority, to the adjudicating authority for a fresh adjudication or decision, as the case may be, then such proceeding shall not be deemed to be a proceeding pending within the meaning of this clause. In terms of the above definition, a casewould mean any provision under the Act or any other Act for levy, assessment and collection of customs duty pending before an adjudicating authority on the date of application. Section 127-B of the Act provides for application for settlement of cases. An importer or exporter may in respect of a case relating to him make an application before adjudication to the Settlement Commission to have the case settled. Proviso u/s.127-B(1) of the Act provides that no applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... my considered view, the petitioner is entitled to maintain the application before the Commission as there is a show cause notice for confiscation and it would fall within the definition of caseas defined u/s.127-A(b) of the Act. Thus, the Settlement Commission was entitled to entertain the application submitted by the petitioner. This view is supported by the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in V.C.Mohan v. Commissioner of Customs (AIR), Chennai-I [2008 (222) E.L.T.344 (Mad)], the relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows: 18. A contention has been raised on behalf of the Department that under Section 127-A, the terminology case has been defined to mean any proceeding under this Act or any other Act for the levy, assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
