TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not have the authority to receive the same. There is no infirmity in the order of the Settlement Commission that calls for any interference in this jurisdiction. There is a fundamental basis as to why the provision is more restricted in its operation. It would defy logic and reason if persons as the present petitioner take a chance to have their matter or claim adjudicated before an authority under the statute and, upon failing in such misadventure, offer to pay a reduced amount than the amount found due. It is evident that the fundamental basis in restricting the relevant provision is to allow a bona fide person to make a settlement proposal prior to taking a chance to have the claim adjudicated. But upon the claim being adjudic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay of the present petition. The petitioner says that the Settlement Commission failed to appreciate the wide import of the expression any proceeding that appears in amended Section 127A(b) of the Act. 4. Subsequent to the amendment effected in or about the year 2007, case in the relevant chapter of the Customs Act is defined in the Section 127A (b) as follows : 127A. Definition. - In this CHAPTER, unless the context otherwise requires (a) (b) case means any proceeding under this Act or any other Act for the leyy, assessment and collection of customs duty pending before an adjudicating authority on the date on which an application under sub-section (1) of Section 127B is made : 5. There is a proviso to the defin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on by the petitioner reported at 2008 (3) Cal LT HC 462 and a judgment of the Delhi High Court. The Commission found that neither case was applicable in view of the amendment to the relevant provision and held that at the stage at which the petitioner had approached the Settlement Commission, such proposal could not be received. 9. There is no infirmity in the order of the Settlement Commission that calls for any interference in this jurisdiction. 10. To begin with, the decision of this Court referred to above was rendered on an excise matter and the relevant provision in Section 32 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was in pari materia with the definition of case prior to the amendment to the Customs Act, 1962. The Delhi High Court judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
