TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E. & C. for finding some solution. The third request was made on the premise that the petitioners would like to approach the Settlement Commission. In such request letter also, the petitioners did not specify any time within which they would make such an application nor did they pray for any specific adjournment date. What they conveyed to the Additional Commissioner was that they would like to approach the Settlement Commission and that a copy of such an application would be produced as soon as the same is filed. In that view of the matter, the Additional Commissioner should keep the matter in abeyance. As the request of the petitioners for time was thus open-ended it was not the statutory duty of the Additional Commissioner to accept any application for adjournment. Under the circumstances no reason to interfere by setting aside the order of the Additional Commissioner only with a view to reviving the stage of the proceedings being pending before the Additional Commissioner so as to enable the petitioners to approach the Settlement Commission. In the result, the petition is dismissed. - Special Civil Application No. 7837 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 18-9-2012 - Akil Kureshi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d noticee and the amount of Drawback claimed on such export is amounting to Rs. 1846639/- as per the chart (Annexure-B) submitted by the Noticee No. 1. 12.3 It also appears that at the time of filing Shipping Bill under claim of Drawback in respect of export of De-Oiled Cake, the said noticee had suppressed the facts that the Export goods (DOC) has been manufactured availing the benefit of Rule 19(2) of CER, 2002 from the department. 3. On the basis of such allegations, the petitioners and other noticees were called upon why duty drawback amount of Rs. 18,46,639/- be not recovered with interest and further why penalty under Section 114 and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act ) be not imposed on them. 4. The petitioners opposed the show-cause notice proceedings by filing detailed reply. The adjudicating authority thereupon proceeded to conduct the hearing of the case. On 9-12-2011, when the matter was fixed for personal hearing and notice of such hearing was duly served on the petitioners, the petitioners under the letter dated 5-12-2011 made a request to keep the adjudication in abeyance in view of the fact that Soyabean Processors Associati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of Section 122A of the Customs Act, 1962, no adjournment of hearing shall be granted for more than three times to a party during the proceeding of adjudication. Further, I find that the Noticee No. 1 to 3 i.e. M/s. Adani Enterprises Ltd., Adani House, Near Methakhali Six Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, Shri Atul Chaturvedi, Chief Executive Officer, M/s. Adani Enterprises Ltd., Adani House, Near Methakhali Six Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, Shri Bharat Dixit, Associated Manager, M/s. Adani Enterprises Ltd., Adani House, Near Methakhali Six Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad have not filed any application under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962 before the Settlement Commission till date though the notice was issued to them before one year i.e. on 17-1-2011. It has been intimated by the said Noticees that they are in process of filing the application before the Settlement Commission. I find no reason to keep the adjudication proceeding pending for an indefinite period as the subject case is pending for more than one year. Therefore, I proceed with the adjudication of the case on the basis of records available and submissions made by the Noticees. 5.4 The adjudicating authority there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration. 7.3 Counsel further submitted that initially the petitioners were awaiting the outcome of the representation made by the Association before the C.B.E. C. When no positive developments took place, they decided to approach the Settlement Commission for which purpose for the first time, a request was made to the Additional Commissioner for adjournment. The Additional Commissioner committed an error in rejecting such a request on the ground that as per the proviso to Section 122A of the Act, he could not have adjourned the proceedings for more than three times. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel Ms. Amee Yajnik opposed the petition contending that the impugned order is appealable. Statutory appeal to the Commissioner is provided. No extraordinary reasons are shown by the petitioners to bypass such statutory remedy. She further submitted that the Additional Commissioner had, after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to participate in the proceedings, passed the order. No fault can be found with his approach. 9. Having thus heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record, it emerges as an undisputed position that in respons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as soon as the same is filed. In that view of the matter, the Additional Commissioner should keep the matter in abeyance. 13. The request of the petitioners for time was thus open-ended. They did not specify any reasonable time within which they would make such an application or specify the time for which the proceedings should be adjourned. They only prayed that hearing be kept in abeyance. They conveyed that application for settlement will be produced as and when filed. 14. As already observed, it was not the statutory duty of the Additional Commissioner to accept any application for adjournment. He, of course, was bound to consider any reasonable request made for adjournment for a reasonable period of time which was allowable within the four corners of law. 15. The approach of the Additional Commissioner, therefore, to adjudicate after granting reasonable opportunities and adjournments, cannot be found fault with. After service of show-cause notice, the petitioners had nearly one year before the Additional Commissioner decided not to grant any further adjournments. If the petitioners were keen and serious in making a clear breast as is being suggested to us; they could hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
