Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2020 (3) TMI 204

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... irector-General of Foreign Trade the licensing authority to import goods duty-free without payment of Customs duty. 3. These 2 Advance Licenses were issued in the year 1993 as per the Export and Import Policy, 1992-97 as inforce at that time read with relevant Hand Book of Procedure issued under and the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The petitioner was required to fulfil export obligation. 4. Under these licenses, the petitioner was entitled to import goods duty-free as per the corresponding Customs Notifications issued by the Central Government, Ministry of Finance. 5. Imports were made under Customs Notification No 159/90-Cus dated 13.3.1990 and Customs Notification 204/92 Cus dated 19.5.1992 issued by the Centra .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... settle the case. 12. The petitioner thereafter approached the 1st respondent Settlement Commission on 9.6.2003 to settle the dispute under section 127 B of the Customs Act, 1962 and admitted liability of Rs. 39,25,511/- apprehending collateral proceedings by the authorities to impose penalty interest and prosecution. 13. Before the 1st respondent Settlement Commission, the petitioner prayed for settling the case on payment of payment of Rs. 39,25,511/- and prayed for immunity from penalty and waiver of interest under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1982. The petitioner paid the aforesaid amount on 27.5.2005. 14. Before the Settlement Commission, the petitioner primarily submitted that there is no provision under the Customs Act, 1962 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e aforesaid purpose. 19. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the decision of the Courts in the following cases:-. i) India Carbon Ltd., Etc vs. The State of Assam, 1997(6) SCC 479 ii)V.V.S.Sugars vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and Ors, AIR 1999(SC) 2124 iii) Delta Paper Mills Ltd., vs. Collector of Central Excise, Gunter, 1995 (77) E.L.T. 544 (A.P.) iv) The Income Tax Officer, 'A' ward Indore v. Gwailor Rayon Silk Manufacturing (Weaving) Co., Ltd., Birlagram.Nagda, AIR 1976 (SCC) 43 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter referred to the following decisions:- i) In Re : SRF Ltd., 2003(158 E.L.T.788 (Sett.Comm.) ii) Commissioner of Customs (Sea Port), Chennai vs. S.R.F.Ltd., 2004 (164) E.L.T.412 (Mad.) iii .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ishena Kumar and Anr. Etc. Etc. vs. Union of India and Ors, 1990 AIR 1782, 1990 SCR (3) 352 iii) Mohandas Issardas And Ors. Vs. A.N.Sattananthan And Ors. AIR 1955 Bom 113 (1954) 56 BomMLR 1156 24. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. I have also perused the records which have culiminated in the impugned order and also considered the case laws. 25. The Central Government has Issued Notification No. 46/2013- Customs dated 26.9.2013. The said notification has amended the a host of Notifications including Notification No 204/92-Customs dated 19.5.1992 wherein it has been stated that in a case of default in export obligation, when the duty on goods is paid to regularise the default, t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt then having evaded payment of duty was bound to pay the same and further more was bound to pay interest in terms of the bond executed by it. The Settlement Commission, therefore, could not have given any direction for deduction in regard thereto. As a settlement commission did not have any jurisdiction to waive the amount of interest payable under the bond, we do not see any jurisdictional error has been committed by it in directing the payment of the said amount which is otherwise payable. In any event the appellant is not prejudiced thereby as irrespective of such direction, the appellant was bound to pay interest under the bond." 28. Since the revenue has not come forward with the challenge to the impugned order of the 1st Respondent .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates