TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Court or Tribunal of Limited Jurisdiction operate as res judicata in subsequent suit/proceedings even if such court not competent to try subsequent suit. Findings of settlement commission if not challenged, Revenue cannot now hold the Tribunal order erroneous. - 78 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 9-3-2010 - V.C. Daga and K.K. Tated, JJ. Shri R. Ashokan, for the Appellant. S/Shri S.N. Kantawala with Brijesh Pathak i/b Ms. Barkha Parulekar, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : K.K. Tated, J.]. - Union of India has preferred this appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the order dated 10th April, 2008 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai setting aside the order of suspension passed by the Commissioner of Customs dated 4th May, 2005 . 2. The above mentioned appeal was admitted by this Court on 19th January, 2009 to consider the following substantial question of law. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the CESTAT is right in setting aside the Order-in-Original No. 33/2007 dated 13-12-2007 based on the order of the Settlement Commission dated 14-11-2006? 3. The Commissioner vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowing due process of law held that Mr. Pradeep H. Ambre, authorised signatory of the respondents had committed misconduct by taking active part in the act of smuggling. It was thus held that the charges were proved against the respondents beyond doubt. It was, thus, held that CHA M/s. East and West Shipping Agency has violated the sub-regulation (C) of Regulation 20 of the CHA Licensing Regulations, 2004. The Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai Zone, Mumbai vide its order in original dated 13th December, 2007 ordered forfeiture of the entire amount of security deposit of the CHA firm M/s. East and West Shipping Agency i.e. respondents and revoked its licence. 10. During pendency of the misconduct proceedings against the respondents M/s. Sonam Enterprises and M/s. Giriraj Enterprises along with other co-noticees including Mr. Pradeep Ambre authorised agent of the respondent CHA approached the Settlement commissioner. The Settlement Commissioner after hearing all the parties was pleased to hold that no allegation of any conscious knowledge could be attributed to Shri Pradeep Ambre. Paragraph 21.3 of the said order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 14th November, 2006 rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations Act, 2004. He further submitted that CESTAT has erred in relying upon the finding recorded by the Settlement Commissioner in its order dated 14th November, 2006 since those proceedings were initiated by Shri Pradeep Ambre, and not by the respondents. 14. Mr. Ashokan further submitted that CESTAT has failed to appreciate that misconduct proceedings initiated against Shri Pradeep Ambre, the power of attorney holder of the respondent CHA were initiated under the provisions of CHA Licensing Regulations, 2004; whereas the proceedings before the Settlement Commission were independent of the said Regulations as such finding recorded by the Settlement Commissioner could not have been relied upon. He thus submits that CESTAT ought to have appreciated that Shri Pradeep Ambre in his statement recorded on 28th January, 2005 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 inter alia has admitted that one Shri Manish Doshi known to him wanted to clear ball bearings under the guise of some other cheap goods without declaring the same to the Customs Department and that the said Shri Manish Doshi asked him to suggest the name of some item which is regularl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that CESTAT has erred in setting aside the order in original No. 33 of 2007 dated 13th December, 2007 relying upon the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 14th November, 2006. 17. On the other hand, learned Counsel Mr. Kantawalla for respondents submitted that the appellants failed to challenge the order dated 14th November, 2006 passed by the Settlement Commissioner till today and, therefore, at this stage the appellants have no right to state that the said order is passed without any jurisdiction. He further submitted that once the Department has accepted the said order passed by the Settlement Commissioner dated 14th November, 2006 and acted pursuant thereto then they cannot turnaround and submit that the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner is without jurisdiction. He further submits that the said order is a judicial order passed by the Competent Court or authority. Hence it is legal and binding on the Revenue. 18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is admitted fact that till today the appellants have not challenged the order dated 14th November, 2006 passed by the Settlement Commissioner. The Department has accepted the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner passed the order after hearing both sides. The said order is not challenged by the appellants till today. The doctrine of res judicata has received a statutory sanction in the Code as a matter of prudence and to give due weightage to the finding or decision so as to reach a finality in the matter of a dispute between the same parties or litigating under the same parties. The doctrine, thus, is to provide finality of dispute between the parties based on the principle of prudence so as to give finality to a finding of a Court rather than permitting the parties to go on to trial more or less on the same issue over again and thus introducing a possibility of conflict of views. 22. In the present case, the Settlement Commissioner in its order dated 14th November, 2006 in paragraph 21.3 specifically held saying we find that no allegation of any conscious knowledge can be attributed to Shri Pradeep Ambre. If this finding is accepted by the appellant and if not challenged by preferring any proceedings to challenge the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner, they cannot now turn around and say that the Tribunal erred in passing the impugned order dated 10th April, 2004 on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
