https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110178 The Settlement Commission did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by M/s. Sai Impex under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962. The majority view rejected the application, citing non-declaration of ball bearings in the Bill of Entry, which aligned with the Madras High Court judgment that undeclared goods are considered smuggled and ineligible for settlement. Despite the dissenting opinion of Vice Chairman A.K. Mehta, the majority order prevailed, leading to the rejection of the application for settlement. The Revenue was directed to refund the amount deposited by the applicant. en-us Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Apr 2012 10:40:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110178 The Settlement Commission did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by M/s. Sai Impex under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962. The majority view rejected the application, citing non-declaration of ball bearings in the Bill of Entry, which aligned with the Madras High Court judgment that undeclared goods are considered smuggled and ineligible for settlement. Despite the dissenting opinion of Vice Chairman A.K. Mehta, the majority order prevailed, leading to the rejection of the application for settlement. The Revenue was directed to refund the amount deposited by the applicant. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110178