TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. - The provisions of Section 127A(b) define a ‘case', the provisions of Section 127F give exclusive jurisdiction to the Settlement Commission in relation to the case and Section 127J which provides that every order passed under Section 127C shall be conclusive- all lead to a reasonable conclusion that once a case has been decided in respect of the importer or the applicant by the Settlement commission, it is not open to Revenue to proceed against other co-noticees. - The provisions of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme and the provisions of Settlement are similar and therefore the principle laid down in the case of Onkar S. Kanwar (2002 (9) TMI 101 - SUPREME Court) would apply in the present case. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value and confirmed demand of duty and interest on the re-determined value. It was also recorded in the Additional Commissioner's order that Shri Sunil Lulla had approached the Settlement Commission who passed the final order No. 92/CUS/HDS/2009 dt. 28.10.2009. It was further recorded in Additional Commissioner's Order that Shri Sunil Lulla had complied with the aforesaid final order and paid the differential duty of Customs amounting to ₹ 7,12,169/- along with interest of ₹ 2,38,430/- redemption fine of ₹ 40,000/- and penalty of ₹ 10,000/-. As per Additional Commissioner's Order no further action was required to be taken as far as Shri Sunil Lulla is concerned. Therefore, it is clear from the Additional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied on the Tribunal decisions in the cases of S.K. Colombowala Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai 2007 (220) E.L.T. 492 (Tri.-Mumbai), Vijay R. Bohra Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. Daman 2010 (260) E.L.T. 290 (Tri. - Ahmd.) and Gautam Pukhraj Bafna Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai 2014 (314) E.L.T. 305 (Tri. - Mumbai). 5. Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). Ld. AR stated that in the present case the adjudicating authority held that Shri Toparapu is the importer who did not approach the Settlement Commissioner hence ratio of the cases cited by the Ld. Counsel is not applicable. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Yogesh Korani Vs. Union of India 2003 (159) E.L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Majority opinion in the case of S.R. Colombowala (supra) that once the case of main notice is settled, proceedings against other co-noticees will come to an end. The reliance placed by the Ld. AR on the Yogesh Korani case has not been properly appreciated. It was held in the said case that: The provisions of K.V.S.S. and the trade notces issued by various Commissioneate clearly show that the immunity to the co-noticees are available only when settlement offered by the principal noticee and the act of the co-noticee pertain to the same matter and 50% of the tax arrears that is due is paid. In other words, where the principal notice gets a case settled under K.V.S.S., it will provide immunity to all the co-noticees, provided the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
