TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mar Batu'. The Customs authorities on examination of the said goods found that the consignment contained Ball Bearings worth Rs. 14,22,178/- CIF and Damar Batu valued at Rs. 57,074/-. Further investigation carried out by Customs Officers revealed that in the past using the same modus operandi, the Respondent No. 1 had clandestenly cleared several consignments of Ball Bearing without payment of duty. Based on the investigation, a Show Cause Notice dated 29th March, 2000 was issued to the Respondent No. 1 calling upon them to show cause as to why imported goods should not be confiscated and duty amounting to Rs. 2,45,83,219/- in respect of earlier consignments should not be recovered and personal penalty should not be levied upon the Petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation on the ground that the Settlement Commission had no power to review its own order unless the power of review is expressly conferred by the statute. By an order dated 24th October, 2001, the Settlement Commission without giving a clear finding on the preliminary issue as to whether the review was maintainable or not, held that the application filed by the Respondent No. 1 was maintainable before the Settlement Commission and further directed the Revenue to implement the interim order passed by the Commission forthwith. Challenging both the above orders the Revenue has filed the present petition. 5.We have heard Counsel on both sides. The basic issue as to whether the Commission had jurisdiction to entertain the application of the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is conferred upon the Settlement Commission. Therefore, the order dated 24th October, 2001 passed by the Commission on the Review Application being without jurisdiction the same cannot be sustained. Thus, in the first order passed by the Commission of 20/23rd February, 2001 the jurisdictional aspect was neither raised nor considered and in the second order dated 24th October, 2001 the issue of jurisdiction of the Commission is considered, but the order itself is without jurisdiction. 8.Under these circumstances, we deem it proper to set aside the order of the Commission dated 24th October, 2001 being without jurisdiction for want of power to review its own order and direct the Settlement Commission to treat the application filed by the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommission to entertain the application filed by the Respondent No. 1 be decided. In our opinion when the order dated 20/23rd February, 2001 does not deal with the jurisdictional aspect of the matter, in the facts of the present case, it would not be proper to judge the validity of the said order on the ground which is not even considered by the Commission. Moreover, to decide the issue of jurisdiction it would be necessary to look into some facts and it would not be proper to look for the facts in the order passed by the Commission on the Review Application which is set aside being without jurisdiction. 11.Under these circumstances the petition is disposed of by setting aside the order of the Commission dated 24th October, 2001 and the Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
