TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion and the one in Ashok Kumar Jain (supra) are quite similar and the issue raised is identical - plea raised by the petitioner is entirely covered against the petitioner by the decision of the Division Bench in Ashok Kumar Jain (supra). Consequently, we hold that the Settlement Commission had the jurisdiction to settle the case - Decided against Revenue. - W.P. (C) No. 8991 of 2014 & C.M. Nos. 20541-20542 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 6-1-2015 - Badar Durrez Ahmed And Sanjeev Sachdeva,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr Satish Kumar For the Respondent : Mr R. S. Sharma JUDGMENT Badar Durrez Ahmed, J (Oral) CM 20542/2014 Allowed subject to all just exceptions. WP(C) 8991/2014 CM 20541/2014 1. This writ petition is dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch application shall be disposed of in the manner hereinafter provided : Provided that no such application shall be made unless, - (a) the applicant has filed a bill of entry, or a shipping bill, in respect of import or export of such goods, as the case may be, and in relation to such bill of entry or shipping bill, a show cause notice has been issued to him by the proper officer; (b) the additional amount of duty accepted by the applicant in his application exceeds three lakh rupees; and (c) the applicant has paid the additional amount of customs duty accepted by him along with interest due under section 28AB: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (underlining added) 3. The facts of the case are that the respondent had arrived at IGI Air ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no question of any disclosure of duty liability as the same had not been disclosed before the proper officer. Consequently, the revenue requested the Settlement Commission to reject the said settlement application. 5. However, the Settlement Commission did not accede to the request made by the revenue and passed the impugned order of settlement. We need not go into the merits of the impugned order or the contents thereof. It is sufficient to note that the objection that was taken by the revenue was that the case of the kind which presents itself in the current writ petition was not one which could be considered as a case for settlement by the Settlement Commission under the provisions of the said Act and in particular, Section 127B th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... everal columns and one of which belong to value of goods brought in as a baggage comes within the purview of Section 77. This was entirely different from the bill of entry or shipping bill which alone attracted the provisions of Section 127 (B) in order to confer jurisdiction with the Settlement Commission. It was emphasized that the goods in this case were not even entered in the disembarkation card filed by the applicant. 7. It may be pointed out that in Ashok Kumar Jain (supra), the passenger had brought the goods with him and he was required to fill in the disembarkation card which he did and, in it, he declared the value of the goods imported as baggage . In the present case, the respondent had also filled the disembarkation card, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
