TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng of Offences) Rules, 2005 before the jurisdictional Chief Commissioner of Customs, if so advised in accordance with law for compounding of the offences. If such an Application is made, the same shall be dealt with on its own merits and in accordance with law. The intimation dated 29/10/2021 is received by the Petitioners on 16.11.2021 as informed to us across the bar. According to the Petitioners, this intimation is dated 29.10.2021. The intimation gives to the Petitioners time of 30 days from the receipt of the intimation for making the Application under the above provisions. The time of 30 days has also expired on15.12.2021. Thus, it can be seen that the Petitioners have been guilty of gross delay and laches in not abiding by and adhering to the mandate of law. It shall be open to the Petitioners to pursue any other remedy available to the Petitioners including the application to the Settlement Commission in accordance with law. Needless to state that if the Petitioner(s) have voluntarily paid any amount during the period of investigation as stated, the Petitioners shall be entitled to a set off for the said amount. Petition dismissed. - WRIT PETITION NO. 9069 OF 2021 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Access System (CAS) either imported directly or purchased on high sea sale basis. 4.3. Based on information received by the Revenue Department and investigation conducted in relation to import of CAS embedded STBs, common show cause notice dated 27.03.2019 was issued by the Principal Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai Zonal Unit, Mumbai to the Petitioners, inter alia, on the ground of non-declaration of licence fee paid or payable to the CAS provider per STB unit; suppression of actual value of STB unit; fabrication of invoices to undervalue the unit price of the STB; non declaration of retail price in terms of the applicable provisions and wrongful availment of exemption under notification dated 17.03.2012 resulting in non-payment of Special Additional Duty (SAD). 4.4. Respondent No.1 was appointed as common adjudicating authority vide Notification No.17 of 2019 dated 22.04.2019. 4.5. On 09.07.2019, Respondent No.1 communicated the date of hearing to the Petitioners. 4.6. By letter dated 25.07.2019 Petitioner No.1 informed the Respondent No.1 that a show cause notice on the similar issue was received by the Petitioner from the Settlement C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of the intent of the Petitioners to approach the Settlement Commission; notices issued to the Petitioners mention that the Petitioners had an option available for settlement of their cases in terms of the provisions of Chapter XIVA of the Customs Act, 1962 which gives the opportunity to the Petitioners to approach the Settlement Commission and that impugned order is contrary to the fundamental principles of natural justice. Mr. Tripathi therefore prays for setting aside and quashing of the impugned order dated 24.03.2020. He submitted that the Petitioners have grave apprehension that the Revenue Department shall launch prosecution against the Petitioners and therefore this Court should intervene and stay any coercive action against the Petitioners. He further submitted that the Petitioner No. 1 has voluntarily paid an amount of ₹ 1,00,00,000.00 during the period of investigation and the other Petitioners had prepared Demand Drafts of the differential duty, penalty and interest to be given to the Settlement Commission but on account of Covid-19, the said demand drafts could not be deposited. He submitted that the Petitioners' bonafides are evident and thus, coercive pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Mehta Infocomm, M/s. Agile Broadband Pvt. Ltd, M/s. Akash Tori Infocom Services Pvt. Ltd, M/s. Rainbow Digitech Pvt. Ltd and Shri Jignesh Mehta. Vide the said PH letters, Noticee were called to attend the PH before me in order to conclude the adjudication proceeding but all the Noticees failed to attend the PH citing common ground of approaching the Settlement Commission vide their various letters and email. Details of PH Letters Partywise are as under; Sr. No. Name of Noticess Date of PH Letter Schedule of PH Remark 1 Shri. Jignesh Mehta M/s. Mehta Infocomm 08.07.2019 16.10.2019 30.01.2020 26.07.2019 08.11.2019 13.02.2020 Not attending citing approaching Settlement Commission. Informed vide letters dated 25.07.2019, 04.11.2019 and also through mail. Further they were represented by Ms. Ami Mehta on 13.02.2020, for limited purpose of intimating regarding filing application before Settlement Commission wherein she stated approaching Settlement Commission. Vide mail dated 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application before Settlement Commission. 2.3 On 29.02.2020, Ms Ami Mehta and Shri Jignesh Mehta approached this Office and requested that they would be requiring some more time for filing of application before Settlement Commission and accordingly sent mail and requested not to pass any order. 2.4 I find from the above that inspite of fixing of the Personal Hearing on three occasions as detailed in table above, none of the Noticees appeared. It is also evident from the records that PH letters were well served in case of all the Noticees except M/s Akash Tori Infocom Services Pvt. Ltd. Inspite of the receipt of PH letters by all the Noticee (except Akash Tori Infocom Services Pvt. Ltd.), none appeared for PH, however they kept stating that they were approaching Settlement Commission for settlement of the instant case, however till passing of this OIO, no such intimation regarding filing of application before Settlement Commission received by me. Final PH letters dated 30.01.2020 were issued to all the Noticees by this office fixing date of PH on 13.02.2020, proceedings of which is detailed in above para. PH on 13.02.2020 was attended by Ms. Ami Mehta on behalf of all the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e rendered the show-cause-notices as null and void. In fact from an overall reading of the list of dates and events narrated above, it appears that the Petitioners' intent was to frustrate the adjudication process and render the show cause notices futile. The intention to delay is therefore writ large on the face of the record and is attributable to the Petitioners' omission to prolong the hearing and on the other hand not approach the Settlement Commission. 8.4 That apart perusal of the intimation dated 29/10/2021 shows that the Petitioners have been given notice to make an application for compounding of the offence under Rule 3 of the said Rules before the jurisdictional Chief Commissioner of Customs in accordance with law. Paragraph Nos. 4, 5 and 7 of the said intimation are relevant and read thus:- 4. However, before launching of prosecution proceedings, it is relevant to mention that under Section 137(3) of Customs Act, 1962 read with the Customs (Compounding of Offences) Rules 2005, arrangement has been made to make an application for compounding of offence under Rule 3 of the Customs (Compounding of offences) Rules 2005 before jurisdictional Chief Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that as it may, we do not find any merit in the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioners that the Petitioners should be granted a stay indefinitely on the ground that the Petitioners were denied their right to approach the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Settlement Commission at any point of time. In fact, before passing the Order-in-Original, the Competent Authority has acceded to the requests made by the Petitioners to approach the Settlement Commission and granted substantial time to the Petitioners which can be seen from the contents of paragraph 8.1 and the chart (supra) referred to herein above. 8.7 In view of the above discussion, we make it clear that it shall be open to the Petitioners to file the appropriate Application under the provisions of Section 137(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Customs (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005 before the jurisdictional Chief Commissioner of Customs, if so advised in accordance with law for compounding of the offences. If such an Application is made, the same shall be dealt with on its own merits and in accordance with law. The intimation dated 29/10/2021 is received by the Petitioners on 16.11.2021 as informed to u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
