Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the settlement application was maintainable when the show cause notice had already been adjudicated and dispatched before the Settlement Commission acquired exclusive jurisdiction.
Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 127B, Section 127C and Section 127F of the Customs Act, 1962 permits settlement only where an application is made before adjudication and the case remains pending. Exclusive jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission begins only when the application is allowed to be proceeded with under Section 127C. On the facts, the adjudication order had already been passed on 17-11-2017 and dispatched on 1-12-2017, whereas the application was allowed to proceed on 7-12-2017. The matter therefore was no longer pending adjudication and did not qualify as a 'case' within Section 127A(b).
Conclusion: The settlement application was not maintainable and was rejected.