Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2013 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (3) TMI 262 - HC - CustomsEx-parte order rejecting the repetitive adjournments - Food Grade Hexane procured without payment of Central Excise duty in the manufacture of De-Oiled Cake which were purchased and subsequently exported under claim of Drawback - SCN issued demanding duty drawback amount with interest and further penalty under Section 114 and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 - assessee contested against rejecting the application for adjournment seeked to approach the Settlement Commission - Held that:- There was no statutory duty on part of the Additional Commissioner to grant adjournment to enable the petitioners to approach the Settlement Commission. His duty was to consider the request of the petitioners on the basis of reasonableness. The petitioners had no right to seek unlimited adjournments nor seek adjournment without any basis. In fact, proviso to Section 122A of the Act provides that the adjournment shall not be granted for more than three times. On previous two occasions, the petitioners had prayed for adjournment on the ground that the Association was to approach the C.B.E. & C. for finding some solution. The third request was made on the premise that the petitioners would like to approach the Settlement Commission. In such request letter also, the petitioners did not specify any time within which they would make such an application nor did they pray for any specific adjournment date. What they conveyed to the Additional Commissioner was that they would like to approach the Settlement Commission and that a copy of such an application would be produced as soon as the same is filed. In that view of the matter, the Additional Commissioner should keep the matter in abeyance. As the request of the petitioners for time was thus open-ended it was not the statutory duty of the Additional Commissioner to accept any application for adjournment. Under the circumstances no reason to interfere by setting aside the order of the Additional Commissioner only with a view to reviving the stage of the proceedings being pending before the Additional Commissioner so as to enable the petitioners to approach the Settlement Commission. In the result, the petition is dismissed.
|