9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1075X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1962 (the Act) by filing two applications. The duty demanded in two show cause notices was Rs.2,13,72,356/- whereas petitioner admitted additional duty of Rs.72,64,064/-. The application that was filed on 21st September 2010 came to be disposed by an order dated 25th February 2011. The Union of India through Commissioner of Customs (Import) has approached this court impugning the said order dated 25th February 2011 passed by Respondent No.2 - Settlement Commission. 2. Mr. Jetly urged that Section 127 B(1) of the Act mandates that any importer in respect of a case relating to him may make an application before adjudication to the Settlement Commission to have the case settled, in such form and in such manner as may be specified by rules. The application shall contain full and true disclosure of its duty liability which has not been disclosed before the proper officer, the manner in which such liability has incurred, the additional amount of customs duty accepted to be payable by him and such other particulars as may be specified by rules including the particulars of such dutiable goods in respect of which he admits short levy on account of misclassification, under valuation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of proceedings of the hearing held on 3rd February 2011, was not the final order and even got merged with the final order dated 12th September 2011 which is impugned in this petition. Mr. Shah submitted that even though the Settlement Commission has reminded applicant-Respondent No.1 to meet its obligation to make a true disclosure and to pay the liability with interest before the case was taken up for further disposal, Respondent No.2 having taken up the case for further disposal should be admitted to have accepted that applicant-Respondent No.1 had mended its way and applicant-Respondent No.1 has also paid the admitted duty liability with interest. Mr. Shah submitted that Respondent No.2 went ahead, entertained the application and passed its final order which is impugned in the petition and there is not even a reference in the final order about any failure on the part of applicant-Respondent No.1 to make full and true disclosure to Respondent No.2. Mr. Shah submitted that in the impugned order what transpired during the hearing on 3rd February 2011 is referred to and Respondent No.2 has not made any reference to the alleged failure to make full disclosure. Mr. Shah further submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. The Apex Court in the case of Fatechand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission (II and WT) 176 ITR 169 and followed by it in another judgment in the case of Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I.Tripathi (1993) 201 ITR 611, while considering the scope of writ jurisdiction of the High Court cautioned the writ Court and permitted it to examine the legality of the procedure followed, not the validity of the order, it not being a Court of appeal. As laid down by the Apex Court, the writ Court should not be concerned with the decision but with the decision making process. 21. Thus, taking overall view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Settlement Commission adopted proper decision making process and the same is in accordance with law. No fault can be found with the decision making process. As observed by the Apex Court in S.I. Tripalhi's case (supra) judicial scrutiny cannot go beyond this point. As already pointed out above, the Settlement Commission was well within its jurisdiction to refuse to grant immunity to the petitioners. The Settlement Commission rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioners failed to make true and full disclosure of its duty liability, as such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d or obligated to pass a reasoned order. Be that as it may, the fact remains that it is open to the Commission to accept an amount of tax by way of settlement and to prescribe the manner in which the said amount shall be paid. It may condone the defaults and lapses on the part of the assessee and may waive interest, penalties or prosecution, where it thinks appropriate. Indeed, it would be difficult to predicate the reasons and considerations which induce the commission to make a particular order, unless of course the commission itself chooses to, give reasons for its order. Even if it gives reasons in a given case, the scope of enquiry in the appeal remains the same as indicated above viz., whether it is, contrary to any of the provisions of the Act. In this context, it is relevant to note that the principle of natural justice (audi alteram partem) has been incorporated in Section 245-D itself. The sole overall limitation upon the Commission thus appears, to be that it should act in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The scope of enquiry, whether by High Court under Article 226 or by this Court under Article 136 is also the same whether the order of the Commission is contr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
