9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmission"]. 2. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was served with a Show Cause Notice dated 14.12.2017 pursuant to an investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence ("DRI"). The DRI had come to the conclusion that the petitioner had inflated the value of readymade garments being exported in order to claim inflated amounts by way of drawback. By a letter dated 07.06.2018, counsel for the petitioner informed the customs authorities that the petitioner was in the process of filing an application before the Commission and it was requested that the adjudication be kept in abeyance. The petitioner's Settlement Application under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act'] was i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n made by him should be allowed to be proceeded with and after taking into consideration the explanation provided by the applicant, the Settlement Commission, shall, within a period of fourteen days from the date of the notice, by an order, allow the application to be proceeded with or reject the application, as the case may be, and the proceedings before the Settlement Commission shall abate on the date of rejection: Provided that where no notice has been issued or no order has been passed within the aforesaid period by the Settlement Commission, the application shall be deemed to have been allowed to be proceeded with." 5. During the pendency of a settlement application before the Commission, the statute provides that the Commission has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The proviso to the said sub-section provides for the consequences of a failure on the part of the Commission to complete either of these steps within the time permitted. In either case, the application is deemed to have been allowed to be proceeded with. Thus, the assessee/applicant is given the benefit of the deeming provision in the event of any delay on the part of the Commission in fulfilling the requirements of the section. 7. In the present case, it is clear that the petitioner's application had been acknowledged by the communication of the Settlement Commission dated 29.08.2018. Although the said communication contemplated an admission hearing on a date to be notified, no such hearing took place. In such circumstances, we are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ggarwala, learned counsel for the respondent, in response to the above query is that the order dated 24th April, 2014 passed by the CCESC deciding to proceed with the application under Section 127C of the Act was passed without hearing the DRI. 12. As far as this submission is concerned, the Court notices that there was sufficient opportunity for the DRI, if aggrieved by the order passed by the CCESC on 24th April, 2014, to have challenged that order in accordance with law. However, without adopting that course, it was not open to the DRI to have proceeded to issue a Corrigendum/Addendum to the SCN dated 20th December, 2013 since in terms of Section 127F(2) of the Act, the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the matter vested with the CCES ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
