TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 1150
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e period June, 2014 to July, 2017 and the demands raised are as follows: Sl.No. Duty Demanded (INR) Port of Import 1. 9,73,553/- Nhava Sheva Port (Seized goods) 2. 1,29,02,999/- Chennai Sea Port (Past Import) 3. 19,98,945/- Nhava Sheva Port (Past Import) 1,58,75,497/- 3. Even prior to the issuance of show cause notice, a demand notice had been issued on 30.03.3018 in respect of 17 bills of entry for the period 21.05.2016 to 17.02.2017. Though the aforesaid period stood telescoped in the period dealt with under the show cause notice, the 17 bills of entry did not form part of the show cause notice issued. 4. The petitioner has settled the demand under demand notice dated 30.03.2018 belatedly with interest, on 14.08.2020. A corrigendum dated 05.12.2018 had been issued to the demand notice making certain modifications to demand notice dated 30.03.2018. As far as demand notice is concerned, it attained finality with the settlement of the duty and interest demanded. 5. To be noted, that demand notice dated 30.03.2018 had also proposed, apart from re-classification and interest, confiscation under Section 111(m) and pena....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....equest the Settlement Commission to admit the present application filed on 14.08.2020, take into account order dated 07.07.2020 and grant immunity in respect of the 17 transactions covered by the demand notice dated 30.08.2018. The prayer is to the effect that the duty paid in respect of those 17 bills of entry be taken to be the duty already paid. 12. The objective of the application is clearly to obtain immunity from penalties and prosecution under the Act. The Settlement Commission has proceeded to reject that application by its order dated 19.08.2020 invoking the bar under Section 127 L placed on subsequent applications, seeking settlement. 13. The question is as to whether the procedure adopted by the Bench in dismissing the application without hearing the petitioner is appropriate and as to whether the bar under Section 127L would be, at all, applicable in the present case. 14. The petitioner relies on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B.Shreeram Durga Prasad and Fatechand Nursing Das V. Settlement Commission (It and Wt) and ors. (176 ITR 169). This is cited to say that once an application is filed, the petitioner/assessee must be heard eve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... tribunals as well. Though the power is akin to that of an ordinary court of appeal, yet the power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. The power may be exercised in cases occasioning grave injustice or failure of justice such as when (i) the court or tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, (ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, such failure occasioning a failure of justice, and (iii) the jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner which tantamounts to overstepping the limits of jurisdiction. 24.Upon a review of decided cases and a survey of the occasions wherein the High Courts have exercised jurisdiction to command a writ of certiorari or to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 in the given facts and circumstances in a variety of cases, it seems that the distinction between the two jurisdictions stands almost obliterated in practice. Probably, this is the reason why it has become customary with the lawyers labeling the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty to the proceedings. Therefore, it is submitted that the Settlement Commission should not have been impleaded as the first respondent and if the Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad is the sole respondent, the writ petition is not maintainable. 19.Thus, the legal principle deducible from the above decisions are while entertaining a writ petition, the doctrine of forum conveniens and the nature of cause of action are required to be scrutinised by the High Court depending upon the facts of each case.' 19. These decisions as well as propositions set forth therein really do not answer the main question agitated by the petitioner in this case. In fact, Mr.Umesh also, after citing these decisions, does not pursue the challenge to maintainability on the ground that what is invoked here is Article 226 and not 227. He would prefer to proceed on the legal issue that has been agitated without delving on the technicalities, and rightly so. 20. I now proceed to decide the legal issue that arises as to whether the bar under Section 127L of the Act would apply in the present case. Section 127L reads as follows: '127-L. Bar on subsequent application for settlement in c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0/- imposed. In such an event, I am of the considered view that the bar under Section 127L would apply on all fours. 25. Thus, merely because the petitioner has chosen to style the application culminating in the impugned order as a fresh application does not mean that the Settlement Commission has to close its eyes to the relief sought and the lineage of the matter, particularly the bar under Section 127 L that must be strictly enforced. 26. In this connection, I may refer to a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in C.P.Re-Rollers Ltd. V. Union of India (W.P.No.3043 (W) of 2015 dated 04.05.2015) where Section 32-O of the Central Excise Act which is in pari materia with Section 127L has been the subject matter of interpretation. The learned Judge states therein 'it is absurd to suggest that the expression 'concealment of particulars of his duty liability', pertains to the application made before the Settlement Commission. If that were to be so, every knave and his accomplice would conceal the duty payable in course of every transaction and approach the Settlement Commission only in the cases wehre he would be caught and would be slapped a show cause notice for addi....