TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .08.2017, the second was preferred on 11.12.2017 and the third application was preferred on 12.12.2017 which are subsequent to the aforesaid notification dated 25th July, 2016. Thus, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the Settlement Commission had any power, jurisdiction and authority to decide an application preferred by the respondent under Chapter XIV of the Customs Act, 1962. It is well settled that an order passed by a Court cannot be so interpreted as permitting a statutory authority to act in violation of the statute. We are unable, therefore, to extend the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana as permitting the Settlement Commission to entertain the application, filed by the respondents before it on merits, even in the face of the expressed statutory proscription contained in the third proviso to serve Section 127B of the Customs Act. The order dated 15th February, 2018 (Annexure P-1 to the memo of this writ petition) passed by the Settlement Commission is set aside - petition disposed off. - W.P.(C) 4143/2018 - - - Dated:- 10-2-2020 - THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. C. HARI SHANKAR J. Petitioner Through: Mr. Aditya Singla, Sr. Standing Counsel wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DRI, to issue a show cause notice in respect of the aforesaid three Bills of Entry under Section 28 read with Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) within four weeks, and to the petitioners, before the High court to move the Settlement Commission within four weeks of the date of issuance of the show cause notice. The Settlement Commission was given liberty to decide all issues in respect of the aforesaid three Bills of Entry. (v) Subsequently, that the order dated 26.08.2016 passed on an application moved by DRI, time of issuance of show cause notice was extended, by the High court, by four weeks. (vi) Ultimately, show cause notices, were issued, proposing confiscation of the cigarettes imported with the aforesaid three Bills of Entry Nos. (i) 4785466 dated 04.04.2016, (ii) 4308262 dated 19.02.2016 and (iii) 4410560 dated 27.02.20216 as well as confirmation and demand of duty of Customs Duty of ₹6,74,92,998/- in respect of the cigarettes and ₹2,77,451/- in respect of the Aluminium scrap imported with the said Bills of Entry. The show cause notices also proposed appropriation towards the said demand of ₹6,30,84,822/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty accepted by him along with interest due under section 28AA: Provided further that no application shall be entertained by the Settlement Commission under this sub-section in cases which are pending in the Appellate Tribunal or any court: Provided also that no application under this subsection shall be made in relation to goods to which section 123 applies or to goods in relation to which any offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) has been committed: Provided also that no application under this sub-section shall be made for the interpretation of the classification of the goods under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975). (3) Every application made under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by such fees as may be specified by rules. (4) An application made under sub-section (1) shall not be allowed to be withdrawn by the applicant. [(5) Any person, other than an applicant referred to in sub-section (1), may also make an application to the Settlement Commission in respect of a show cause notice issued to him in a case relating to the applicant which has been settled or is pending before the Settlement C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed by the counsel for petitioner Mr. Aditya Singla, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner DRI contends that the Settlement Commission seriously erred in entertaining the applications before it by respondent Nos.2 to 11, as, in view of the fact that cigarettes stood notified in Section 123 of the Act, the applications were not maintainable. Learned counsel has also submitted that the reliance by the Settlement Commission, on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in DGFT vs. Kanak Exports (supra) was also misdirected. 4. Arguments on behalf of the respondents: Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 canvassed two preliminary objections viz. Firstly, that the present writ petition is not maintainable at the instance of DRI and could have been filed only by the Commissioner, who was seized of the show cause notice issued to the petitioner and secondly, that this Court did not possess the territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter as the show cause notices have been issued by the Office of the DRI and imports also taken place within the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana. On merits learned counsel for respondents con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... challenged, has been passed within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, this Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Admittedly, the impugned order was passed by the Principal Bench of Settlement Commission located at New Delhi. As such, we reject the objection of territorial jurisdiction, as raised by Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, appearing on behalf of the respondents. The third proviso to Section 127B of the Customs Act states that No application in this Section shall be made in relation to goods to which Section 123 applies . As such, maintainability of the application visa-vis notification of the goods under Section 123 of the Act, would have to be assessed on the basis of goods were so notified on the date when the application was made, and not on the date when the goods were imported. Dealing with the expression made as implied in Section 58(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which refers to renewal of a permit on an application made and disposed of , the High Court of Allahabad in Kanchan Singh vs. S.T.A.T. Lucknow, AIR 1986 All 23 held that the word made means filed which implied receipt by the authority concerned. Similarly, dealing with expression ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Haryana, was ipso facto maintainable. It is obvious that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana never entered into the aspect of maintainability of the settlement application. In any event, as cigarettes were notified prior to the filing of the settlement application, the applications were expressly not maintainable. It is well settled that an order passed by a Court cannot be so interpreted as permitting a statutory authority to act in violation of the statute. We are unable, therefore, to extend the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana as permitting the Settlement Commission to entertain the application, filed by the respondents before it on merits, even in the face of the expressed statutory proscription contained in the third proviso to serve Section 127B of the Customs Act. The reliance by Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate on the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana is, therefore, misconceived, is accordingly rejected. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, we hereby quash and set aside the order dated 15th February, 2018 (Annexure P-1 to the memo of this writ petition) passed by the Settlement Commission. 7. With these o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
