TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limited, Sri Vijay Jhavesr, Sri J.Kaviyarasan and Khader Nawaz, namely, the Petitioner herein. It is also the admitted position that the primary Applicant and other co-noticee approached the Settlement Commission and the said Application was admitted and settled vide Admission-cum-Final Order No.52/2006-Cus. dated 28.08.2006. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in the case of MAHARAJA CARGO VERSUS CUS. C. EX. SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CHENNAI 2014 (11) TMI 1103 - MADRAS HIGH COURT [2014 (11) TMI 1103 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] are squarely applicable to the facts of present case, where it was held that when the Application of the main Applicant is admitted by the Commission, the Application of the co- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r with another cheque drawn in favour of the Petitioner s concern, namely, M/s.Mayoora Enterprises for an amount of ₹ 22,53,532/- and explained that Ms/.Sri Devi Extractions Private Limited, Namakkal had issued the cheque wrongly in favour of the Petitioner s concern and requested for encashment of the same for the reason that the return of the cheque would delay the payment for the licence already supplied to the importer, namely, M/s.Sri Devi Extractions Private Ltd. 3.The Petitioner further states that Mr.J.Kaviyarasan specifically stated before the Investigating Officer that Sri Khader Nawaz of Mayoora Enterprises is not aware that the encashed amount of ₹ 22,53,532/- should be given to Sri Vijay Jhaver who wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondents state that the other co-noticee approached the Settlement Commission along with the primary Applicant whereas the Petitioner admittedly approached the Settlement Commission after the Settlement Commission proceedings in respect of the primary Applicant and the co show cause noticee were settled. Accordingly, the Respondents submit that the Application for Settlement is not maintainable. 5.When the case was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is a trader in DEPB licences and that such lincences are issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade(DGFT) and used for the purposes of availing customs duty exemptions. The learned counsel for the Petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; B.M.RAKESH, in 2018 (364) E.L.T. 734(Sett.Comm.) On the basis of the said judgments, the learned counsel contended that this Court permitted the co-noticee also to maintain the Settlement Application because it arose out of the same cause of action. In fact, in the above mentioned judgment of the Settlement Commission it was held that when the Application of the main Applicant is admitted by the Commission, the Application of the co-noticee should also be entertained so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. 6.In response, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents submitted that the Petitioner does not satisfy the requirements of Section 127(B)(1) of the Customs Act in as much as the Petitioner did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
