AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 51
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....request of the parties, Petition itself is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 3. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge communication/ orders dated 18th October, 2016 and 2nd November, 2016 passed by the Central, Excise & Service Tax Settlement Commission (Commission). The communication dated 18th October, 2016 from the office of the Commission informed the Petitioner that in the absence of paying interest within the 30 days as provided in the order dated 22nd April, 2016 under Section 127C (5) of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act), the application for settlement stands rejected. The Communication dated 2nd November, 2016 from the office of the Commission informed the Petitioner that its appl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Act. This with a view to settle the dispute with the Respondent. (d) However, the Commission was of the view that entire amounts due i.e. duty and interest hereon, as required under the proviso to Section 127B of the Act was not satisfied. Therefore, notice was issued to the Petitioners with regard to the maintainability of the application for settlement. The Petitioner responded to the notice and was heard by the Commission on its stand that no further duty and/or interest is payable. (e) On 22nd April, 2016, the Commission passed an order, not accepting the contention of the Petitioner. Nevertheless, it gave an opportunity to the Petitioner to make good the deficiency of short payment of duty and interest within 30 days of its or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y letter dated 16th June, 2016, addressed to the Commission contended that no interest was payable by it. This in view of the fact that an amount of Rs. 4,97,262/(paid in respect of third bill of entry abandoned goods) was with the Department for the entire period. Thus, the Revenue was not deprived of the above amount for any period. (i) However, the Superintendent in the office of the Commission did not accept the above contention of the Petitioner. In fact, by a letter dated 22nd June, 2016, the Superintendent in the office of the Commission, directed the Petitioners to deposit the amount of interest attributable in respect of the two bills of entry immediately. It further, directed the Petitioner to inform the Commission of the due pay....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der dated 22nd April, 2016 to pay the interest, called upon the Petitioner to pay the interest and report the same to the Commission. Thus, the time of 30 days provided in the order dated 22nd June, 2018 stood extended. Petitioner did pay the interest and thus satisfied requirements of the order dated 22nd April, 2016 of the Commission. 6 As against the above, Mr. Adik, learned Counsel for the Revenue states that the order dated 22nd April, 2016 is a self operating order. Therefore, once the Petitioner has not complied with the payment of interest within the time provided in order dated 22nd April, 2016, the application for settlement stand rejected. It is submitted that the communication dated 22nd June, 2018 from the office of the Commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Petitioner that its application for settlement stands rejected in view of the order dated 22nd April, 2017 of the Commission, is without taking into account the letter dated 22nd June, 2016 addressed by the office of the Commission to the Petitioner, directing them to deposit interest immediately. Petitioner, in compliance thereof paid the interest. These were issues which required the Commission to hear the Petitioner, before holding/ communicating that there is non-compliance with the order dated 22nd April, 2016. 9. In fact, miscellaneous application dated 25th October, 2016 to recall/reconsider the communication dated 18th October, 2018 was also rejected on 2nd November, 2016 without any hearing or taking into account the events su....