Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2017 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 265 - HC - CustomsValidity and legality of order passed by Settlement Commission - petitioner's case is that the Settlement Commission completely fell in error in dismissing the Settlement Applications of the Petitioners as being inadmissible in view of the fact that by virtue of the provisions of section 127C(1) read with its proviso, the Applications filed by the Petitioners were deemed to have been allowed to be proceeded with. Petitioner laid great stress on the proviso to section 127C(1) which stipulates where no notice has been issued or no order has been passed under section 127C(1) within a period of 14 days as stipulated therein, then the Application shall be deemed to have been allowed to be proceeded with. Held that: - an order that is passed u/s 127C(5) is the final order after the Settlement Application is either allowed to be proceeded with or deemed to be allowed to be proceeded with. If that contingency happens, there is no question of passing any final order u/s 127C(5) rejecting the Application on the ground that it is inadmissible u/s 127B. This scheme is clear from an ex-facie reading of the provisions of section 127C - it is not in dispute that the Settlement Applications of the Petitioners were filed on 27th May, 2014. The first notice as contemplated u/s 127C(1), was issued by the Settlement Commission on 10th June, 2014 to remove the defects and to show cause why the Applications of the Petitioners should be allowed to proceed with. After this notice was issued, there was no order passed on the admissibility of the Settlement Applications filed by the Petitioners up and until the passing of the impugned order on 27th March, 2015. This alone was in violation of the statutory provisions as set out in section 127C(1) which contemplates that an order either allowing the Application to be proceeded with or rejecting the same ought to be passed within a period of 14 days from the date of issuance of the notice. If this is not done, then the Settlement Applications are deemed to be allowed to be proceeded with. In any event, if the Settlement Commission was to reject the Settlement Applications of the Petitioners on the ground that they are not admissible, there was absolutely no need to pass a detailed order on merits of the case and that too taking into account the Corrigendum/Addendum that was issued by the Revenue to the show cause notice even after the Settlement Applications were filed by the Petitioners. Therefore, looking to the totality of the facts of the present case, there is no hesitation in holding that the impugned order passed by the Settlement Commission dated 27th March, 2015 cannot be sustained. Impugned order of Settlement Commission is quashed and is set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|