TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application for settlement not maintainable. Impugned order of Single Judge sustainable. - 1238 of 2009 and 1 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 23-3-2010 - R. Banumathi and M. Venugopal, JJ. Shri S. Senthilnathan, for the Appellant. Shri S. Thirumavalavan, SCGSC, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : M. Venugopal, J.]. - This writ appeal arises out of order of the single Judge made in W.P. No. 695 of 2009 dated 14-7-2009 [2009 (243) E.L.T. 679 (Mad.)] confirming the order of Additional Bench of Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission holding that the Settlement Application filed by the Appellant in respect of three show cause notices is not maintainable under Section 127-B of the Customs Act and that the applications do not satisfy the pre-requisites of Section 127-B. 2. The brief facts are that the Appellant is a manufacturer and exporter of ready made garments. The entire garments manufactured were exported to overseas customers viz., M/s. Knock out, M/s. Esprit and M/s. S. Oliver Company. Under Rule 19(2) of Central Excise Rules, the Appellant firm availed certain duty free cotton yarn/fabrics without paying duty for such imports. On gathering intelligence tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nable and learned single Judge declined to quash the order of Bench. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellant Mr. Senthil Nathan contended that the authorities grossly erred in interpreting clause (b) of the first proviso to Section 127B(1). The main plank of contention of Appellant is that all the three Applications should have been taken as one. The learned counsel for Appellant would further submit that the word "case" was defined under Section 127-A(b) of the Act and the same is not to be strictly interpreted but to be construed as any proceeding under the Act, not depending upon any territorial jurisdiction. The learned counsel would further submit that Section 127-B confers only the pecuniary jurisdiction and does not deal with different authorities and therefore the authorities ought to have taken three show cause notices as one and the learned single Judge ought to have allowed the Writ Petition. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner is that the word 'case' under Section 127(A)(b) of the Customs Act 1962, does not relate to a particular territorial jurisdiction but it only speaks of a pecuniary jurisdiction and that 127(A)(b) was not to be st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the normal procedure contemplated under the Act, the learned counsel for respondents submitted that the proviso of Section 127-B has to be construed strictly and three different show cause notices cannot be considered as one. It was further submitted that as the duty involved in all three show cause notices is less than Rs. 3 lakhs, no single application shall be made in this case and each one case will have to be treated as single case and the authorities rightly held that the pre-requisites of Section 127-B was not satisfied and learned single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition. 11. The Appellant exported the goods by shipping bills from three different destinations - Port/airport i.e., Sea Port of Chennai and Tuticorin and Airport chennai. under Rule 19(2) of Central Excise Rules, the Appellant firm availed certain duty from import of cotton yarn and fabrics without paying duty for such imports. Three show cause notices were issued and answerable to three different adjudicating authorities in three different Commissionerates i.e., Deputy Commissioner, Chennai Customs Sea Port, Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin and Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Air), Chennai. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication was made under sub-section (1) before the 1st day of June, 2007 but an order under sub-section (1) of section 127-C has not been made before the said date, the applicant shall within a period of thirty days from the 1st day of June, 2007 pay the accepted duty liability failing which his application shall be liable to be rejected. (2) where any dutiable goods, books of account, other documents or any sale proceeds of the goods have been seized under Section 110, the applicant shall not be entitled to make an application under sub-section (1) before the expiry of one hundred and eighty days from the date of the seizure. (3) Every application made under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by such fees as may be specified by rules. (4) An application made under sub-section (1) shall not be allowed to be withdrawn by the applicant." 13. As per the plain reading of the first proviso to Section 127-B of the Customs Act, the Applicant can file an application for settlement if a show cause notice has been issued and the admitted duty liability exceeds Rs. 3 lakhs, which means for each and every application there should be a notice and the additional duty liability admitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... beral interpretation of first proviso to Section 127-B and Section 127-A(b). Learned counsel would submit that even though show cause notices were issued by three different Commissionerates, the adjudicating authority is one and the same, who is vested with jurisdiction to decide the matter and therefore even though there were three show cause notices, a single application filed by the Appellant is maintainable. It was further contended that when adjudicating authority is one and the same, it cannot be said that show cause notices issued by three different Commissionerates are different and that separate applications are to be filed. 17. Therefore, in the present case, three show cause notices were issued which were answerable to three different Adjudicating Authorities before three different Commissionerates and as such the cases covered in the three show cause notices are only three different cases (1) before Deputy Commissioner, Chennai (Sea Port), (2) Deputy Commissioner of customs, Tuticorin, (3) Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Air) Chennai and therefore, they cannot be treated as one single case and as a matter of fact it cannot be clubbed. The appellant cannot seek in aid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t affording an opportunity of hearing either in person or through his authorised representatives to the Appellant, we point out that in the reply of the appellant through its counsel dated 3-11-2008, no personal hearing was sought for. it is true that Natural Justice being a concept its principles are not an edicts of a statute but since the impugned order of the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, dated 11-11-2008 has examined the application of the appellant and other connected records thereby, it had taken into consideration the reply of the appellant through its advocate dated 3-11-2008, we conclude that just because no personal hearing of the appellant or through representative was given to the appellant, it could not be said that there was violation of Principles of Natural Justice. More so, the subject matter of controversies/disputes between the parties only impinge upon the interpretation of the various Sections of the Customs Act on legal plane and therefore, no prejudice was caused to the Appellant in not providing opportunity of hearing to its authorised representative. 21. when the term 'case' as per Section 127A(b) of the Act was clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ked into for the purpose of granting benefit of Drawback duty no matter whether the goods were received by the consignee concerned as per decision Terai Overseas Limited v. Union of India - 2001 (129) E.L.T. 574 at page 579(Cal). 25. In fact the first respondent made a claim of interest (as per Section 75A(2) of the Act which speaks of interest on Drawback) at the rate mentioned in Section 28(A) of the Customs Act, in and by which the interest was to be paid when there was failure to pay the duty determined as per sub Section (2) ibid within three months from the date of determination, in our case, all the three show cause notices issued to the Appellant was dated 9-9-2008 and that it paid a total sum of Rs. 10,35,585/- voluntarily. As a matter of fact, the three show cause notices SCN 82/08, 83/08, 84/08 dated 9-9-2008 issued by the Assistant Director of the first respondent referred to the Appellant/Petitioner's suppression of the factum of having availed the benefits duty free procurement of fabrics under Notification 43/2001 dated 26-6-2001 as per Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules 2002 and consequently availed all industry rate of duty Drawback in their shipping bills un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
