Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2006 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (12) TMI 159 - HC - CustomsJurisdiction on the Settlement Commission - Composite order - cut and polished diamond - absence of filing of bill of entry as contemplated under the proviso to Section 127C(1) - HELD THAT:- It is the case of the Revenue that the Special Leave Petition filed against the decision of this Court dated 21st July, 2005 is pending before the Apex Court. Therefore, when this Court has already ruled that the application filed by Manish Kalvadiya is maintainable, it is not open to the revenue to contend that the Settlement Commission was in error in entertaining the application filed by Manish Kalvadiya. Accordingly, the first argument of Mr. Jetly is liable to be rejected. It is pertinent to note that in the application filed by M/s. I.P. Patel & Co., relating to cut and polished diamond no additional amount of duty has been disclosed and they have referred to the amount offered by Manish Kalvadiya in respect of cut and polished diamonds. By the impugned order, the Settlement Commission has held that in view of composite show cause notice issued, the reliefs granted to Manish Kalvadiya in cut and polished diamond will be applicable to M/s. I.P. Patel and Co. as a co-noticee in respect of cut and polished diamond. In our opinion, when the order passed by the Settlement Commission is a composite order, it will not be proper to hold that it is restricted to Manish Kalvadiya alone. Moreover, even in the case of Manish Kalvadiya, the Settlement Commission has not given any finding as to whether the enhanced duty liability accepted by Manish Kalvadiya represents the correct duty liability. In this view of the matter in our opinion, it is just and proper to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the Settlement Commission with a direction to decide it afresh in accordance with law, leaving all the contentions of both the sides open. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Settlement Commission to decide the applications filed by the parties independently and in accordance with law. All contentions of all the parties are kept open. Both the petitions are disposed of accordingly with no order as to cost.
|