Writ Appeal Dismissed, Settlement Commission Order Upheld. Finality of Commission's Decision Emphasized

The court dismissed the Writ Appeal, upholding the order of the Writ Court and the Settlement Commission. The appellant's contentions were not accepted, and the comprehensive order of the Settlement Commission, including the duty liability on raw materials and the depreciation on capital goods, was affirmed. The court emphasized the finality and conclusiveness of the Settlement Commission's order and found no violation of principles of natural justice.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Violation of principles of natural justice.
2. Scope of the Settlement Commission's order.
3. Depreciation on imported machinery.
4. Duty liability on raw materials.
5. Jurisdiction and powers of the Settlement Commission.
6. Remission of duty under Section 23 of the Customs Act.
7. Finality and conclusiveness of the Settlement Commission's order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of principles of natural justice:
The appellant argued that the learned Judge failed to appreciate the specific plea of violation of principles of natural justice. The appellant contended that the letter dated 10.05.2016 from the Department was not furnished to them, which deprived them of an opportunity to reply. However, the court found that the letter dated 10.05.2016 was a response to the appellant's submission dated 25.04.2016 and both submissions were discussed in detail by the Settlement Commission. Therefore, the contention of violation of principles of natural justice was not accepted.

2. Scope of the Settlement Commission's order:
The appellant claimed that the order passed by the Settlement Commission was beyond the scope of their application. They argued that the only issue pending was the duty liability on moulds, not on raw materials. The court, however, found that the appellant had sought settlement on the admitted liability and prayed for immunity under the law. The Settlement Commission had considered all aspects, including the duty on raw materials, and passed a comprehensive order.

3. Depreciation on imported machinery:
The appellant contended that the Settlement Commission should have allowed 90% depreciation on the imported machinery. The court noted that the Settlement Commission had accepted the 90% depreciation on capital goods, including moulds, and settled the liability accordingly. The appellant's claim was addressed, and the depreciation was duly considered in the final order.

4. Duty liability on raw materials:
The appellant argued that there was no liability with regard to raw materials. However, the court found that the Settlement Commission had determined the duty liability on raw materials at Rs. 36,25,472/-. The appellant's contention that the raw materials were unfit for consumption and should be destroyed was not accepted, as the goods were neither lost nor destroyed but had become unfit due to non-use by the appellant.

5. Jurisdiction and powers of the Settlement Commission:
The appellant claimed that the Settlement Commission should have exercised powers as an adjudicating authority under Section 127F of the Customs Act. The court held that the Settlement Commission had exercised its jurisdiction properly, considered the factual and legal aspects, and exercised discretion in settling the liability. The argument that the Settlement Commission should have acted as an Assessing Officer was not accepted.

6. Remission of duty under Section 23 of the Customs Act:
The appellant contended that they were entitled to remission of duty under Section 23 of the Customs Act, as the raw materials had become unfit for consumption. The court found that remission of duty under Section 23 applies only when goods are lost or destroyed before clearance. Since the raw materials were not lost or destroyed but became unfit due to the appellant's failure to use them, remission under Section 23 was not applicable.

7. Finality and conclusiveness of the Settlement Commission's order:
The appellant challenged the finality of the Settlement Commission's order. The court cited previous judgments, emphasizing that an order passed by the Settlement Commission is final and conclusive and can only be interfered with if it is contrary to statutory provisions. The findings of fact recorded by the Commission are not open for examination by the High Court or the Supreme Court. The appellant cannot accept favorable parts of the order and challenge the unfavorable parts.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the Writ Appeal, upholding the order of the Writ Court and the Settlement Commission. The appellant's contentions were not accepted, and the comprehensive order of the Settlement Commission, including the duty liability on raw materials and the depreciation on capital goods, was affirmed. The court emphasized the finality and conclusiveness of the Settlement Commission's order and found no violation of principles of natural justice.

---