TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1456
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Customs Act, 1962 ('the Act') were dismissed. 2. The petitioners had preferred the aforesaid applications in relation to a common show cause notice (SCN) dated 24th March, 2009 issued by the Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi ('DRI). The applications were rejected by the CCESC on the ground that "there does not appear to be any meeting ground between the assertions of the applicant and the Revenue and in such a situation the case is not amenable for settlement." The CCESC was of the view that the matters agitated before it "can be resolved only by examination of documents and facts which cannot be drawn in settlement proceedings". In arriving at the said conclusion, the CCESC relied upon t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts relevant to their duty liability, which had not been earlier been disclosed, and also make disclosure of the manner in which the said liability was incurred. Nowhere in the impugned order, has the CCESC concluded that these two essential requirements have not been met. While there is power with the CCESC to reject an application if it does not meet the above requirement, there is nothing in any of the provisions under Chapter XIV-A of the Act which talks of 'settlement of cases' that enables the CCESC to reject an application only because there was no 'meeting ground' between the applicant and the DRI/Revenue. 7. The DRI had prepared a report in response to the disclosure made by the petitioners for consideration by the CCESC. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....matter for adjudication rather than take up it before itself. When the matter travelled to the Supreme Court at the instance of the assessee, the Supreme Court set aside this court's judgment and sent it to the CCESC subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 75 crores with the Department within 12 weeks. Mr. Satish Aggarwala, learned counsel for the DRI pointed out that subsequently again at the instance of the assessee the aforementioned order dated 31st August, 2016 was recalled by an order dated 21st November, 2016 of the Supreme Court. The case is now before the adjudicating authority. 10. The Court is of the view that in any event the decision in Union of India v. Dharampal Satyapal (supra) is distinguishable on facts. In that case ....