9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Court in M/s Lesag HBB (I) Ltd. and Others vs. CCE, [2016 (11) TMI 681 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and that of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs Omkar S Kanwar [2002 (9) TMI 101 - SUPREME COURT] that the proceedings against them ought to have been dropped under the KVS Scheme. The Court finds that the CESTAT has not discussed the import of the two judgments in the impugned orders. Was the CESTAT obliged to deal with the appeal on merits notwithstanding the preliminary objection raised by the Department on issue (i) above? - HELD THAT:- Once the CESTAT accepted the plea of the Department that the benefit of the order of the Settlement Commission should not be extended to the Appellant, the logical sequitur was that the appeal had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the CESTAT in Customs ROA Application No. C/ROA/50625-50627/2018 (SM) seeking recall of the aforementioned order dated 5th June, 2018. 6. The Appellant, M/s Genex Foods Pvt. Ltd., is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of refined Edible Oils and Vanaspati. Pursuant to certain intelligence gathered about one M/s Pioneer Soap Chemicals, regarding misuse of some exemption under notifications dated 1st March, 2002 and 16th January, 2004 for importing crude palm oil at concessional rate of customs duty and not using it for the assigned purpose by diverting the same to the open market, a show cause notice (SCN) dated 24th April, 2007 was issued to 13 entities/persons including the present Appellant. 7. During the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant could not claim immunity on the basis of the order dated 24th February 2009 of the Settlement Commission which was confined to the main noticee i.e. M/s Pioneer Soap Chemicals and 6 other co-noticees. It was held that the benefit of the Kar Vivad Samadhan (KVS) Scheme could not suo motu be extended to these Appellants. The appeals were accordingly dismissed. 11. Thereafter each of the said Appellants including the present Appellant i.e. M/s. Genex Foods Pvt. Ltd. filed applications in the CESTAT for recall of the aforementioned order. It was pointed out that it was only a preliminary objection raised by the Department which was dealt with in the order dated 5th June, 2018 whereby CESTAT held that the Appellants were not ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts notwithstanding the preliminary objection raised by the Department on issue (i) above? 14. As far as question (i) above is concerned, having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, the Court is of the view that the mere fact that the Settlement Commission permitted the Department to proceed against the co-noticees in accordance with law did not mean that the co-noticees could not rely on the said order to argue, on the basis of the judgment of this Court in M/s Lesag HBB (I) Ltd. and Others vs. CCE, (supra) and that of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs Omkar S Kanwar (2002) 145 ELT 266 (SC) (supra) that the proceedings against them ought to have been dropped under the KVS Scheme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
