Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2006 (12) TMI 159

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d that the Settlement Commission was in error in entertaining the application filed by Manish Kalvadiya. Accordingly, the first argument of Mr. Jetly is liable to be rejected. It is pertinent to note that in the application filed by M/s. I.P. Patel Co., relating to cut and polished diamond no additional amount of duty has been disclosed and they have referred to the amount offered by Manish Kalvadiya in respect of cut and polished diamonds. By the impugned order, the Settlement Commission has held that in view of composite show cause notice issued, the reliefs granted to Manish Kalvadiya in cut and polished diamond will be applicable to M/s. I.P. Patel and Co. as a co-noticee in respect of cut and polished diamond. In our opinion, w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e to challenge the order passed by the Settlement Commission dated 9th November, 2005 whereas Writ Petition No. 8622 of 2005 is filed by Shri Manish Kalvadiya seeking enforcement of the order of the Settlement Commission dated 9-11-2005. 4. The facts relevant for the disposal of these two petitions are that by a show cause notice dated 17th October, 2003 the Joint Commissioner of Customs Air Intelligence Unit, Mumbai directed Manish Kalvadiya, Bharat Bodra, Girish Bodra, Mahesh Savani and M/s. I.P. Patel and Co. to show cause as to why 5877 carats of cut and polished diamonds valued at Rs. 2,79,61,710/ seized from Manish Kalvadiya and 34147.66 carats of cut and polished diamonds valued at Rs. 36,44,66,620.25 seized from the office premi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Rs. 83,11,742/ and also executing a bond covering the value of the goods with bank guarantee for Rs. 25,00,000/. The Settlement Commission further held that the above order passed in the case of Manish Kalvadiya will apply to the case of M/s. I.P. Patel Co. because the show cause notice was a composite one and that the reliefs granted to Manish Kalvadiya will apply to M/s. I.P. Patel Co. as a co-noticee. This order of the Settlement Commission is challenged by the Revenue. 8. Mr. Jetly, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue in Writ Petition No. 9171 of 2005 submitted twofold arguments. Firstly, he submitted that in the absence of filing of bill of entry as contemplated under the proviso to Section 127C(1) of the Customs .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or in entertaining the application filed by Manish Kalvadiya. Accordingly, the first argument of Mr. Jetly is liable to be rejected. 10. As regards the second argument of Mr. Jetly, on perusal of the show cause notice, it is seen that there were two issues (one) relating to confiscation of 5877 carats of cut and polished diamonds seized from Manish Kalvadiya and (two) confiscation of 34147.66 carats of cut and polished diamond seized from the office premises of M/s. I.P. Patel Co. Admittedly, said Manish Kalvadiya and M/s. I.P. Patel have filed independent applications before the Settlement Commission. It is pertinent to note that in the application filed by M/s. I.P. Patel Co., relating to 34147.66 carats of cut and polished diamond .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a alone. Moreover, even in the case of Manish Kalvadiya, the Settlement Commission has not given any finding as to whether the enhanced duty liability accepted by Manish Kalvadiya represents the correct duty liability. In this view of the matter in our opinion, it is just and proper to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the Settlement Commission with a direction to decide it afresh in accordance with law, leaving all the contentions of both the sides open. 13. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 9th November, 2005 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Settlement Commission to decide the applications filed by the parties independently and in accordance with law. All contentions of all the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates