TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Customs Commission decision remanded for lack of reasoning, petitioner's challenge upheld.</h1> <h3>M/s. Naushie Exports Versus Customs & Central Excise Settlement Commission, The Commissioner of Customs</h3> M/s. Naushie Exports Versus Customs & Central Excise Settlement Commission, The Commissioner of Customs - 2020 (371) E.L.T. 229 (Mad.) Issues:Challenge to order of Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission on imposition of interest.Analysis:The petitioner contested an order of the Settlement Commission specifically regarding the imposition of interest. The duty liability was acknowledged and settled by the petitioner as demanded in the show cause notice. However, the dispute arose concerning the payment of interest. The revenue argued for interest payment based on the contract terms at 15%, while the Settlement Commission granted partial immunity from interest exceeding 10% per annum, considering changes in Foreign Trade Policy and Section 127 H of the Customs Act, 1962.The petitioner relied on previous court decisions, highlighting the issue of jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission to consider waiver of interest. The matter was remanded by the Bench to the Settlement Commission for further review, following precedents set in similar cases.The Revenue's counsel cited a Supreme Court judgment affirming the decision of the Calcutta High Court, emphasizing that the Settlement Commission could not waive interest under certain circumstances. This legal position was further supported by another case where the Supreme Court clarified the distinction between interest payable under the Customs Act and under a bond executed as per a specific scheme.The High Court, in its analysis, noted the lack of reasoning in the Settlement Commission's decision regarding the waiver of interest up to 90%. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Commission for a fresh decision in line with the law and the Supreme Court's judgment. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Commission for further proceedings and orders were to be passed within a specified timeline.In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with the mentioned directions, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed as a result of the judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
