TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 853X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ettlement Commission - there is no allegation made by the petitioner as to the violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner had been afforded full and effective opportunity. As the reasons given by the Settlement Commission are cogent and proper and the petitioner cannot be permitted to accept a portion of the order i.e. with regard to settlement in respect of the claim for duty on capital goods, immunity from payment of interest, restricting payment of penalty to the extent of ₹ 50,000/- alone and immunity from prosecution under the Act and state that they are entitled to challenge only the portion of the order with regard to the duty demanded on raw material. This piecemeal challenge to the order of the Settleme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner demanding duty to the tune of ₹ 3,28,27,082/- under Section 72(1)(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter called the Act) and proposing to levy penalty under Section 112 of the Act. 3. The petitioner filed an application before the Settlement Commission on 31.8.2005 and by then, their name stood changed as M/s.Standard Shoe Sole Mould (India) Limited. In the work sheet appended to the application in Annexure XII with regard to the duty demanded on raw material, the petitioner did not admit any duty liability. But, with regard to levy pertaining to duty liability on capital goods, the petitioner admitted a sum of ₹ 25,29,277/-, after which, the petitioner filed a written submission on 2.3.2006, enclosing a revised wor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ettling the petitioner's case by arriving at the customs duty payable at ₹ 46,52,571/- and after giving credit to ₹ 10,27,099/- for the capital goods on the depreciated value, the petitioner was directed to remit the remaining amount with regard to the raw material. That apart, immunity from payment of interest under Section 127H of the Act was granted and an amount of ₹ 50,000/- alone was imposed as penalty. The petitioner was also granted immunity from prosecution under the Act. The petitioner is not aggrieved by the order passed by the Settlement Commission in its entirety, but only with regard to the duty demanded in respect of the raw material. 7. The petitioner's case is that even at the first instance, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e notice, which led to the filing of the application before the Settlement Commission, had quantified duty on raw material. Therefore, it has to be seen as to how the Settlement Commission dealt with the matter. 11. The Settlement Commission took note of the submissions of the Commissioner at the time of personal hearing wherein it was contended that the petitioner had not informed the stoppage of production to the Department as well as the availability of stock of materials at the time of stoppage of production. It was further contended that though the petitioner did not provide any satisfactory account of the goods imported, used, balance quantity available, etc., when the Divisional Preventive Group verified the stock of raw materials ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... correspondence took place and the case was heard by the Commission on 12.1.2006 and 21.2.2006. 14. That apart, the submissions made on either side with regard to the duty demanded on raw material was considered in detail and the Settlement Commission, in paragraph 16.8, recorded a finding that remission of duty will arise only in cases where the goods have been lost or destroyed at the time before clearance, that in the instant case, the goods were never lost nor destroyed and that the petitioner failed to inform the Department about the stoppage of production at any point of time, apart from the fact that the petitioner admitted the shortage of the goods, when the officials of the Department inspected their bonded warehouse. Thus, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded by the Commission or questions of fact are concerned, the same is not open for examination either by the High Court or by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Challenge to the order of the Settlement Commission on those grounds was rejected by the Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Vs. Rohan Anirudha Soelekar [reported in (2013) 288 ELT 253]. 19. In Singhvi Reconditioners Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI [reported in (2010) 251 ELT 3], the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that the assessee having opted to get their customs duty liability settled by the Settlement Commission cannot be permitted to dissect the Settlement Commission's order with a view to accept what is favourable to them and reject what is not. That is what the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
