Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2023 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 1150 - HC - CustomsBar on application before the settlement commission - scope of the term 'any other matter' u/s 127L - whether the bar under Section 127L would be, at all, applicable in the present case? - Misclassification of the imported goods by the petitioner - application dismissed without hearing the petitioner - whether the procedure adopted by the Bench in dismissing the application without hearing the petitioner is appropriate? HELD THAT:- The present case is no exception. It is for this reason and bearing in mind the spirit and objective of Chapter XIV-A, that Legislature imposes a bar upon parties to approach the Settlement Commission in any other matter in three specified situations:- (i) Where a penalty is imposed on the assessee on the ground of concealment of particulars of duty liability. (ii) Conviction of an offence and (iii) Remand of the case to the proper officer under Section 127I. The phrase 'any other matter' is relevant here. While the petitioner emphasises upon the word 'other' to state that the bar applies only to a cause of action different from that in regard to which the first application was filed, is disagreed. The phrase 'any other matter', in my considered view, would bar an assessee from approaching the Settlement Commission ever, in the three situations set out under clauses (i) (ii) & (iii) in Section 127L(1). This is by way of a caution/deterent, to ensure that an assessee who approaches the Settlement Commission comes with a full and true disclosure placing all cards on the table in the spirit in which that Chapter must be seen to apply - In the present case, the case of the petitioner has been found to attract penalty and a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- imposed. In such an event, the bar under Section 127L would apply on all fours. Thus, merely because the petitioner has chosen to style the application culminating in the impugned order as a fresh application does not mean that the Settlement Commission has to close its eyes to the relief sought and the lineage of the matter, particularly the bar under Section 127 L that must be strictly enforced. In the present case, the petitioner is well aware of the duty that has been imposed in respect of 17 addtional transactions as amended by the subsequent corrigendum. The petitioner has also settled the duty demand acquiescing to the fact of wrongful classification by it at the original instance - In such circumstances, the petitioner ought to have, even at the original instance, included those transactions in the ambit of settlement application and hence having failed to do so cannot be granted a second innings merely to obtain the benefit of waiver. Petition dismissed.
|