TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (12) TMI 42
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r approached the Settlement Commission in relation to dispute with the Director General of Foreign Trade. It is not necessary to refer to the interim proceedings that took place. Suffice it to state that on 19th October, 2004 the Settlement Commission passed final order No.57/2004-CUS settling the case by determining the liability of the petitioner at a sum of Rs.73,09,326.80. While passing the final order the petitioner was granted immunity against imposition of penalty and fine. In relation to the liability to pay interest, the Settlement Commission fixed the rate of interest at 10% p.a. stating that in light of the true and full disclosure made by the petitioner as to its liability and the co-operation extended in finalizing the case, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the learned advocate for the petitioner that the Court may intervene provided the petitioner not only discharges its liability to pay the interest of Rs.23,56,651/- as directed by the Settlement Commission but also pays interest on such delayed payments. It is an accepted position between the parties that as on 10th December, 2005 the petitioner has made total payment of the outstanding amount of interest i.e. 23,56,651/-. 6. In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 16th May, 2005 made by the Settlement Commission cannot be permitted to stand. There is no dispute, and none was raised before this Court, that the Settlement Commission does not have powers under Section 127H(2) of the Act to withdraw the immunity granted to a per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eneral proposition as such as to in what circumstance the said power can be or cannot be exercised. 8. In the present case, as the facts reveal, the Settlement Commission has not even heard the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 16th May, 2005. In the subsequent application seeking further extension of time and payment by way of installments the petitioner had categorically referred to its weak financial position and pendency of case before the BIFR. The petitioner has also given reasons for the weak financial position. Instead of passing an order without hearing the petitioner, it would have been appropriate for the Settlement Commission to have given a hearing to the parties and, if necessary, called upon the petitioner t....