9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2. The main point urged by Mr Satish Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Additional Commissioner of Customs, is that the Settlement Commission did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the respondent inasmuch as the respondent did not comply with the conditions stipulated in the first proviso to Section 127B of the said Act. Section 127B, to the extent relevant, is reproduced herein below:- "127B. Application for settlement of cases. -(1) Any importer, exporter or any other person (hereinafter referred to as the applicant in this Chapter) may, in respect of a case, relating to him make an application, before adjudication to the Settlement Commission to have the case settled, in such form and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n baggage and found that it contained 738 pieces of offset printing heads. As the respondent could not produce any documentary evidence for having legal possession of the said goods in a commercial quantity in order to lawfully import the same, the said goods were seized by the custom officers under the provisions of the said Act on the reasonable belief that the same were smuggled into India and were liable to confiscation. The customs portion of the disembarkation slip was also recovered. An investigation was carried out and, thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 06.08.2013. During the pendency of the show cause proceedings, the respondent moved the application under Section 127B of the Customs Act for settlement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case that since no bill of entry was filed in respect of the goods which were brought in, the settlement application could not have been made in terms of the first proviso to Section 127B(1) of the said Act. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue submitted that the issue sought to be raised by Mr Satish Kumar is entirely covered by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Ashok Kumar Jain: 2013 (292) ELT 32 (Delhi), where a similar plea had been raised. In the said decision, the contention of the revenue was recorded as under:- "2. The Revenue contended that the Commission failed to appreciate that the applicant's case was not one under Section 127(A) as he did not file an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. The Division Bench in the case of Ashok Kumar Jain (supra) considered the provisions of the Customs Act, including Section 77 which dealt with the declaration of baggage by the owner and Section 127B to which we have already alluded above. 8. After considering the said provisions, the Division Bench arrived at the following conclusion:- "11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that on a careful reading of Section 127(A) and 127(B) the Revenue's contention that since the applicant had not filed bill of entry or that the case was one relating to baggage and therefore did not involve short levy or non-levy is without force. The provisions that confer jurisdiction on the Settlement Commission cannot, in the opinion of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
