TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 17
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oval of goods by forging documents, making false declarations and causing loss of revenue to the tune of 3.88 crores for which Show Cause Notice dated 10.01.2007 was issued by department. The appellant then approached the Settlement Commission and settled the matter by payment of duty of Rs. 82,25,502.45 and was granted immunity from prosecutions. Though department filed appeal against such order before the Hon'ble High Court, the same was dismissed by the Single Judge. The department filed writ appeal against such order (which was later dismissed vide order dated 03.07.2019) 1.2 In the course of issuing the above Show Cause Notice, the license issued to the appellant was suspended vide memo dated 03.10.2006 under Section 58(3) of Customs Act, 1962. The appellant filed writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court and interim stay was granted which allowed the appellant to continue the business. In compliance of such order the license was renewed from time to time. 1.3 In respect of the appellant's duty Free Shop at Goa International Airport, the appellant was issued another Show Cause Notice demanding duty of Rs. 96,66,209 for the shortfall in warehoused goods. 1.4 Again, i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y with the signature of the crew in the declaration with Department, there was no signature of crew member in cash bill, the name of crew/vessel was not seen mentioned in the cash bill, no such crew was available during voyage, sale was made to costal run vessel, signature did not tally purchase denied by master etc. The department was not able to prove the diversion or clandestine removal of goods. The maximum evasion of duty alleged was on the basis that signature of buyers did not tally with the signature available with the department. The comparison of signature was on visual examination and the department did not produce any expert opinion in this regard. The appellant then moved the Settlement Commission after admitting duty liability of Rs. 82,25,502.45 for which the appellant was not able to produce any evidence due to the long time lapse. 3.1.1. The Settlement Commission ordered for payment of the above amount with simple interest of 10% p.a. Further, immunity was granted to appellant and co-applicants. The department then filed writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court challenging this order of the Settlement Commission which was after a huge delay of one year. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10/2005 to 20.07.2008. After due process of law the original authority vide Order-In-Original dated 30.09.2010 confirmed demand of Rs. 1,78,53,938/- and imposed penalty. Against this, the appellant as well as department filed appeals before the CESTAT. The Tribunal vide Final order dated 18.04.2011 set aside the order-in-original dated 30.09.2010 and remanded the matter for denovo-adjudication. In such denovo proceeding the original authority vide Order-in- Original dated 30.11.2011 confirmed the proposals in both the Show Cause Notice. 3.5.1 Aggrieved by such order, the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal and vide Final Order No. A/31754-31756/2017 dated 06.11.2017 as reported in 2018(363) E.L.T. 450(Tri-Hyd) allowed the appeal, by setting aside the duty demand confirmed against appellant. The Tribunal also ordered to restore the license of the appellant within a period of one month. 3.6. It is submitted that all the incidents alleged in the present Show Cause Notice have reached finality and have been decided in favour of appellant. Therefore there are no grounds to reject the request for renewal of license. The Learned Counsel prayed that the appeal may be allowed. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... duty liability for the period when the duty became due till the date of actual payment of duty. The Revenue shall work out the Interest liability and adjust the same from the amount already deposited by them. After adjusting the duty and interest, balance amount, if any, shall be refunded to the applicant (iii) Immunity is granted to the applicant from fine, penalty and prosecution under the Customs Act and under any other Central Acts; (iv) The co-applicants are also granted immunity from penalty and prosecution under the Customs Act and any other Central Acts." 6.2. Though the department filed appeal against this order before the Hon'ble High Court, the same has been dismissed. Learned Authorized Representative has argued that the appellant has admitted the liability before the Settlement Commission in order to settle the dispute and therefore the guilt on the part of the appellant is established. In our view, the said argument is untenable. The Settlement Commission provides for an alternate dispute resolution mechanism for taxpayers who wish to resolve the tax disputes in a spirit of conciliation rather than litigation. It is a remedy (under Section 127A) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... imported goods shall not be allowed to relinquish his title to such goods regarding which an offence appears to have been committed under this Act or any other law for the time being in force. " Sections 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 read as follows : "58. Licensing of private warehouses. - (1) At any warehousing station, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs may license private warehouses wherein dutiable goods imported by or on behalf of the licensee, or any other imported goods in respect of which facilities for deposit in a public warehouse are not available, may be deposited. (2) The Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs may cancel a licence granted under sub-section (1) - (a) By giving one month's notice in writing to the licensee; or (b) If the licensee has contravened any provision of this Act or the rules or regulations or committed breach of any of the conditions of the licence : Provided that before any licence is cancelled under clause (b), the licensee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (3) Pending an enquiry whether a licen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under Section 23 of the Customs Act. Therefore, demand of Customs duly on the warehoused goods which has been stolen cannot be demanded from the appellant. The judgment cited by the revenue and relied upon by the adjudicating authority stands on different footing as those judgments are not in relation to warehoused goods of which duty was insured by way of insurance policy drawn in favour of Commissioner of Customs in terms of Bond Licence. Thus the judgments relied upon by the revenue are not applicable to the present case. Further in none of cases cited by the revenue the fact of insurance of duty of warehoused goods in favour of Commissioner of Customs is emanating which shows that as far as the duty is involved the insurance company was liable to make the duty payment to the revenue. 7. We are also of the view that when there is scope for interpretation of any law, to achieve the right intendment of law it is necessary to analysis the objective of the law under interpretation with represent to the subject matter of the present case, the object of remission of duty is either in Excise or Customs that when goods is lost, even though the same is otherwise liable to duty ....