Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (4) TMI 1106 - DELHI HIGH COURT

2016 (4) TMI 1106 - DELHI HIGH COURT - 2016 (336) E.L.T. 201 (Del.) - Whether in the light of the statutory power of CCESC to exclusively exercise the jurisdiction of the officer of Customs, the impugned Corrigendum could have been issued on a date subsequent to the CCESC deciding to proceed with the applications filed before it - Respondent submitted that the order passed by the CCESC deciding to proceed with the application under Section 127C of the Act was passed without hearing the DRI.

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

urisdiction to issue Corrigendum/Addendum which made a very significant change to the SCN whereby the classification of the imported goods was changed and the duty demand correspondingly increased. Therefore, the impugned Corrigendum/Addendum is plainly unsustainable in law as it contrary to Section 127F(2) of the Act.

Validity of the Corrigendum/Addendum before the CCESC itself - Held that:- this submission appears to be misconceived since no such Corrigendum/Addendum could have been .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s permitted to revive its application before the CCESC in terms of the order passed by the CCESC in the matter. - Decided in favour of petitioner - W.P.(C) 3074/2015 - Dated:- 26-4-2016 - S. Muralidhar And Vibhu Bakhru, JJ. For the Petitioners : Mr Pradeep Jain, Mr Tarun Chawla and Mr Shubhankar Jha, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr Satish Aggarwala, Advocate ORDER 1. The challenge in this petition is to Corrigendum/Addendum dated 12th August, 2014 issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelli .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

es. Apart from that, 210 pieces of cartridges and 6580 kgs. of toner were recovered. Further, 41 pieces of old and used photocopier machines were also recovered. Investigations were commenced and statements were recorded which showed that the Petitioners had been importing old and used photocopier machines by undervaluing the goods up to the extent of 50%. In the SCN issued to the Petitioners on 20th December, 2013, the plea of the DRI was that there has been extensive undervaluation of the impo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

#39;Act') and that the case is allowed to be proceeded with subject to the conditions that the applicant satisfies all the requirements at the time of final hearing. 4. It is stated that while the matter was with the CCESC, the Petitioners received the impugned Corrigendum/Addendum dated 12th August, 2014 to the SCN dated 20th December, 2013 changing the classification of the import of photocopier machines thereby enhancing the duty demand. When a hearing took place before the CCESC on 5th D .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ioners to apply afresh after the decision of the High Court in the matter . 5. In response to the notice issued in the present petition, the DRI filed a counter affidavit on 5th May, 2015 where, inter alia, it stated that a wrong statement was made by the Petitioner before the CCESC when the matter was heard on 5th December, 2014 that the Petitioners had already agitated the correctness of the Corrigendum before this Court. According to the Respondents, a copy of the present petition was served .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

bove order was passed in light of the statement made by learned counsel for the Petitioners that the present writ petition had been filed on 4th December, 2014, i.e., one date prior to the hearing of the matter by the CCESC on 5th December, 2014. 7. At the subsequent hearing of the present petition on 8th December, 2015, the Court noted that the digital file as directed has been placed on record. It was also noted that the relevant scrutiny sheet was also on record. This aspect need not be furth .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in relation to the case. 9. Section 127F(2) reads as under: (2) Where an application made under section 127B has been allowed to be proceeded with under section 127C, the Settlement Commission shall, until an order is passed under sub-section (5) of section 127C, have, subject to the provisions of sub-section (4) of that section, exclusive jurisdiction to exercise the powers and perform the functions of any officer of customs or Central Excise Officer, as the case may be, under this Act or in th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

perform the functions of any officer of Customs or Central Excise Officer, in relation to the case. 11. The question that arises is whether in light of the above statutory power of the CCESC to exclusively exercise the jurisdiction of the officer of Customs, the impugned Corrigendum could have been issued on 12th August, 2014, i.e., on a date subsequent to the CCESC deciding to proceed with the applications filed before it. 12. The submission of Mr Satish Aggarwala, learned counsel for the Respo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version