TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (11) TMI 412
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mbay vide Writ Petition No. 2202 of 2001. The Applicant in the said writ petition had, inter alia, made the following submissions :- (1) It was submitted to the Hon. High Court that the Commissioner is judicial or quasi judicial authority (the term used in the writ petition is Commissioner) and, therefore, is enjoined in law to proceed in a judicious manner by adopting an objective and judicious approach. The Commission is required in law to act on the basis of evidence and material on record. The Commission had noted that there was no evidence including in the form of export declarations to show that the value declared on the said goods covered by the remaining 7 Bills of entry was not correct. The Commission is a fact finding body and, therefore, ought to have decided the case on the basis of the facts on record and material disclosed by these Respondents which was placed on record before the Commission. In the absence of any evidence or material on record, the determination of the Additional Duty liability of Rs. 23,01,077/- is unsupported by any evidence or material on record and hence such a determination of the duty liability is liable to be set asi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....posing tax without authority of law and therefore, violative of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. (8) Without prejudice to the aforesaid, the Petitioner submit that in determining the additional duty liability of Rs. 23,01,077/- the Commission has, however, calculated the element of freight and insurance on notional basis although the actual amount of freight and insurance is available on record and has in fact been accepted for the purpose of calculating the admitted duty liability. Accordingly, the determination of the duty liability of Rs. 23,01,077/- is ex-facie erroneous and incorrect and improper in law. (9) The Petitioner had also contended that there shall be writ, restraining the order passed by the Commission to be implemented and the Hon. Court to consider legality thereof and to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 2-8-2001. 4. The Hon. High Court vide their order dated 10-9-2001 has passed the following order :- "Mr. Nankani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, seeks leave to withdraw this petition with liberty to file an application for rectification before the Settlement Commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Manhar Audiotronics (P) Ltd. only and submitted that the case, issues, etc. pertaining to both M/s. Manhar Audiotronics (P) Ltd. and M/s. Paul Industries being the same, the Commission may like to pass a combined decision. The ld. Advocate further submitted that the case was heard by the Commission and a final order was also passed on 2-8-2001. The Applicant moved a Writ Petition No. 2202 of 2001 in the Bombay High Court challenging the said final order of the Commission. As per the Order dated 10th September 2001 the Hon. High Court had permitted the Applicant to withdraw his petition with liberty to file an application for rectification before the Settlement Commission which, inter alia, reads as follows :- "The Settlement Commission is directed to consider the rectification application, in accordance with law, ................." 5.3.1 In the said Order, it was also stated that "All contentions of the parties are left open." 5.3.2 In this view of the matter, miscellaneous application had been filed by M/s. Manhar Audiotronics (P) Ltd. before the Hon. Settlement Commission seeking to modify the Commission's final order dated 2-8-2001 by accepting payment made b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the DRI had taken invoices from the Applicant and submitted the same as evidence to this Commission. 5.3.8 The ld. Advocate also submitted copies of the following citations :- (1) 1997 (94) E.L.T. 129 (Tribunal) In the CEGAT Court No. 1, New Delhi, Justice U.L. Bhat, President and Shri K. Sankararaman, Member (T) - Khushiram Beharilal v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (2) 1992 (59) E.L.T. 139 (Tribunal) Before the CEGAT, Special Bench 'A' New Delhi, S/Shri Harish Chander, Vice President and P.K. Kapoor, Member (T) - Trimurti Enterprises v. Collector of Customs. 5.3.9 The Commission asked the ld. Advocate the provision in the law allowing him to file an application for rectification of the Order passed by this Commission. The ld. Advocate submitted that the rectification application had been filed and the same had to be considered for disposal by the Commission under the direction of the Hon. High Court. 5.3.10 The ld. Advocate at the end submitted that he had made the disclosure correctly and pleaded before the Commission for granting the benefit of Rule 5(3) and other benefits as mentioned in the mis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at or about the same time as the goods being valued.................." Here, the ld. Consultant laid emphasis on the transaction value. The ld. Consultant submitted that the Applicant was not coming up with the fact that what was the transaction value in the instant case. Firstly there should be an admission by the Applicant that this was the price at which the goods had actually been imported into India so that a settlement could be arrived at. Here, the evidences adduced by the Revenue was the export declarations obtained from abroad. Only some export declarations could be obtained as explained before passing of the final order. As records older than a period of two years were not maintained, the Revenue could not get any export declarations in 7 out of 10 invoices. In order to determine the value in respect of the goods covered under 7 Bills of Entries, the Revenue had taken the prices admitted by the Applicant itself. The Revenue had also taken the basis of export declaration already in possession. 5.4.6 The ld. Consultant argued that the ld. Advocate of the Applicant had accepted the goods imported and cleared 10 days prior were of various types showed that the goods w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to in the Show Cause Notice issued by the DRI. The goods are at same commercial level and from the same country of origin. The ld. Advocate of the Applicant submitted in general that the Settlement Commission being a statutory body has no powers to rectify its mistake suo motto. In the instant case, however, there is direction from the High Court and hence, the miscellaneous application has been filed by the Applicant. The ld. Advocate in this regard has referred to sub-Section 2 of Section 129B relating to Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, as appearing in Chapter XV of the Customs Act, 1962, which reads as below : - "The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within four years from the date of the order passed by it under sub-Section (1) and shall make such amendments if the mistake is brought to its notice by the Commissioner of Customs or the other party to the appeal; Provided that an amendment which has the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the other party shall not be made under this sub-section, unless the Appellate Tribunal has given notice to him of its intention to do so and has allowed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ettlement Commission is of the opinion (the reasons for such opinion to be recorded by it in writing) that, for the proper disposal of the case pending before it, it is necessary or expedient to reopen any proceeding connected with the case but which has been completed under this Act before application for settlement under Section 127B was made, it may, with the concurrence of the applicant, reopen such proceeding and pass such order thereon as it thinks fit, as if the case in relation to which the application for settlement had been made by the applicant under that section covered such proceeding also. Provided that no proceeding shall be reopened by the Settlement Commission under this section after the expiry of five years from the date of application under sub-Section (1) of Section 127B." (emphasis added). 6.2.2.1 From the aforesaid statutory provision, it is apparent that the reopening of the completed proceedings is not with reference to rectification of any mistake but for proper disposal of a case pending before the Settlement Commission. The time limit for reopening any completed proceeding is also specified as five years from the date of such application made ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovisions of the aforesaid Acts, has mentioned that the Settlement Commission is being established in line with similar Settlement Commission existing in Direct Tax side. The provisions in the Customs and Central Excise Acts are paramateria to the provisions of Chapter XIX-A to the Income Tax, 1961. Relating to the Settlement Commission (Income Tax), there was occasion by the Hon. High Court, at Bombay, to observe the following in the case of Rasik Ramji Kamani v. S.K. Tripathi and Others [1994 (76) TAXMAN 77]. "The scheme regarding the working of the Settlement Commission is no longer obscure. A deep exploration of the background of the constitution of the Commission had been already undertaken by the Supreme Court in its decision in Shreeram v. Settlement Commission 118 ITR 169 (sic). It is not the policy of the law or the direction of legislation to lean in favour of a social, criminal, particularly of the white collar brand. This, notwithstanding the scheme of the Settlement Commission, escaped judicial frowns for a major reason : a speedier culmination of a tax dispute may, in a sense, serve the cause of the nation needing huge resources for its vast welfare schemes. The Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tribunal's decision in the said case of Orson Electronics Pvt. Ltd. has since been upheld by the Hon. Supreme Court. The Applicant has relied upon the case of Samrat Enterprises v. Commissioner [2000 (41) RLT 506] where the Hon. Tribunal has held that pro-rata enhancement is not permissible. The brief facts of the case of Samrat Enterprises are that on the basis of prices observed in respect of contemporary imports of certain specified descriptions of 'electric capacitors' by other importers, the case was taken up for detailed investigation by Customs authorities. On the basis of the said investigation, value for purpose of assessment was arrived at on the basis of contemporaneous value of imported goods. The Tribunal has observed that "The supply of goods from Hong Kong is no justification for declaring the goods of Chinese Origin. It has adequately been established that the country of origin of the goods had been intentionally misdeclared. Therefore, their confiscation and imposition of penalty on the importer have to be upheld as legally correct and justified in the facts of the case." The Tribunal in the said case has also referred to the nature of goods and observed that "With....