9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Petitioner is that he is a trader in DEPB licence. In the course of business, the Petitioner states that Mr.J.Kaviyarasan, Manager(Imports) of M/s.Sabari Logistics, Chennai approached the Petitioner in February,2003 for DEPB licences on behalf of M/s.Sri Devi Extractions Pvt Ltd, Namakkal. Pursuant to the said request, the Petitioner arranged for the following DEPB licences: No.0410036789 dated 18.02.2003 for Rs. 1,85,654/- and No.0410036790 dated 18.02.2003 for Rs. 6,79,900/- pertaining to M/s.Five Star Marine Exports. The payment for the said two licences was received in the name of M/s.Five Star Marine Exports. Subsequently, Mr.J.Kaviyarasan approached the Petitioner with another cheque drawn in favour of the Petitioner's concern, na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner did not satisfy the conditions specified under Section 127(B)(1) of the Customs Act,1962. The said Order dated 17.11.2006 is impugned in this Writ Petition. 4.The case of the Respondents is that the Show Cause Notice dated 10.05.2006 was issued to the Petitioner for the limited purposes of imposing penalty under Section 112(A) of the Customs Act and that such demand for penalty does not come within the scope of Section 127(B)(1) of the Customs Act. In addition, the Respondents submit that the Petitioner did not reply to the Show Cause Notice and approached the Settlement Commission without exhausting the remedy. In addition, the Respondents state that the other co-noticee approached the Settlement Commission along with the primary Appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herein the Settlement Commission recorded that the Applicant filed the Application independently of the main noticee and that he has not made any disclosure of additional revenue and also not filed a Bill of Entry. Accordingly, the Settlement Commission rejected the application. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner also referred to the following judgments in support of his contentions. (1) IN RE: RAJDOOT ROAD CARRIERS P. LTD. in 2016(338) E.L.T. 686 (Mad.) (2) MAHARAJA CARGO Vs. CUS. & C. EX. SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CHENNAI in 2016 (338) E.L.T. 686(Mad.). (3) IN RE; B.M.RAKESH, in 2018 (364) E.L.T. 734(Sett.Comm.) On the basis of the said judgments, the learned counsel contended that this Court permitted the co-noticee als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nawaz, namely, the Petitioner herein. It is also the admitted position that the primary Applicant and other co-noticee approached the Settlement Commission and the said Application was admitted and settled vide Admission-cum-Final Order No.52/2006-Cus. dated 28.08.2006. 9.In view of the aforesaid position, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner are squarely applicable and it is just and necessary that the Application of the Petitioner for settlement should also be taken up for hearing and decided on merits. Accordingly, the Impugned Order dated 17.11.2006 is liable to be quashed. 10.In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and the Impugned Order dated 17.11.2006 is quashed. Consequently, the Fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
