2016 (12) TMI 135

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted 30-01-2009. The present appellants in the above appeals are Shri Anil Goyal Authorised Signatory of M/s Sree Kumar Utensils Pvt. Ltd and Shri Ranjit S. Choudhari, MD of Mangalchand Alloys & Refineries Pvt..Ltd.. He submitted that as per Section 127 F(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, where the applications have been seized by the Settlement Commission, any other Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter relating to the said application. The appellants have produced the order passed by the Settlement Commission. It is conceded by the Ld AR that these appellants are co-noticees in the original proceedings, which was settled by the main applicant Shri Kumar Utensils Ltd., before the Settlement Commission. 2. The Ld. Counsel on behalf ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Settlement Commission. It is also not disputed that the appellants are implicated pursuant to the main case which was settled before the Settlement Commission by an application moves by the main party. In the case of S.K. Colombowala Vs CCE, reported in 2007(220)ELT-492(Tri.Mum) the specific question that was considered was whether the appellant who had not filed an application before the Settlement Commission can claim immunity from further proceedings on the ground that the main case has been settled before the Settlement Commission. The relevant portion of judgment in S.K.Colombowala case is reproduced as under: "23. In the instant case, the case which was pending before the Commissioner who has passed the impugned order, was a ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... file an application for settlement of a case and that once such a case is admitted and settled, the entire case gets settled. (emphasis supplied). The provisions in Section 127J relating to conclusiveness of matters stated in the settlement order and bar against re-opening of any matter covered by such order in any proceedings is clearly indicative of the legislature s intention of complete settlement of a case qua all parties involved in that case. The provisions of Sec. 127F fortify view that once an application for settlement has been allowed to be proceeded with, the proper officer who exercises jurisdiction over the case ceases to have any jurisdiction in relation to the case and it would be therefore, incongruous to hold that such an....