9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he KVS scheme Was the CESTAT obliged to deal with the appeal on merits notwithstanding the preliminary objection raised by the Department on issue 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 to be then considered on merits. The Court fails to understand how the CESTAT could observe that nothing further remained to be decided in the appeals in view of the order of the Settlement Commission. Both the issues require reconsideration by the CESTAT - appeal allowed by way of remand. - CUSAA 181/2019 - - - Dated:- 15-5-2019 - S. MURALIDHAR AND I.S. MEHTA JJ. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary, 2004 for importing crude palm oil at concessional rate of customs duty and not using it for the assigned purpose but 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 pendency of the SCN proceedings, an application was made by M/s. Pioneer Soap Chemicals through its Proprietor and 6 other entities/individuals (co-noticees) before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Settlement Commission (hereafter Settlement Commission ). On 24th February, 2009 the Settlement Commission passed its final order under Section 127 C (5) of the Customs Act, 1962 settling the customs duty interest and penalty amounts payable by M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ach of the said Appellants including the present Appellant i.e. Shri Rohit Aggarwal 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 entitled to the benefit of the order of the Settlement Commission. It was pointed out that even if the said preliminary objection of the Department was accepted, it would mean that the appeals would still have to be considered on merits. It was further pointed out that the Appellants had placed reliance on a decision of this Court which had not been duly considered by the CESTAT whilst passing the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 v. CCE, (supra) and that of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Omkar S Kanwar (supra) 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. 15. Even as regards question (ii) it is plain on reading the order dated 5th June, 2018 that there is no discussion on the merits of the appeal in the said order. In other words, 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 Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
