2022 (7) TMI 727

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....under section 127C of the Customs Act, 1962 ("the said Act") stood abated by virtue of sub-section 6 of section 127C of the said Act because the application was filed prior to 30.06.2007 and it did not get disposed before 29.02.2008, the cut-off date. Respondent No.2 also gave liberty to petitioner to file, in the interest of fairplay and justice, the application afresh if they chose to do so. 2. According to petitioner, it diligently pursued its application at all times and it was the department that had resorted to challenge the interim order passed by the Settlement Commission belatedly and thereby creating an impediment in the progress of the proceedings before the Settlement Commission. The thrust of Mr. Motwani's submissions is tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to ensure expeditious disposal of pending cases. The said amendments cannot be construed as punishing an applicant for the inability or failure of the Settlement Commission to dispose of its application within the period specified in section245D(4A) where such delay in disposal is not attributable to the applicant. The time-limit for disposal of an application under Section 245D(4A)(1) will have to be read as 'may' to the extent that it is not on account of the fault of the applicant. It does do same violence to the language, but at the same time the constitutionality of the provision can be upheld. To do otherwise would be to punish an applicant for the inability of the Settlement Commission to fulfill its statutory obligation, for matters....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....will be also arbitrary. We have also held that it is possible to read down the provisions of Section 245HA(1)(iv) in the manner set out earlier. This recourse has been taken in order to avoid holding the provisions as unconstitutional. Having so read, we would have to read Section 245HA(1)(iv) to mean that in the event the application could not be disposed of for any reasons attributable on the part of the applicant who has made an application under Section 245C. Consequently only such proceedings would abate under Section 245HA(1)(iv).  Considering the above, the Settlement Commissioner to consider whether the proceedings had been delayed on account of any reasons attributable on the part of the Applicant. If it comes to the conclusio....