TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1202
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Panel Counsel for UOI with Mr. Taranpreet Singh, Advocate for R-3. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. These two petitions i.e. W.P.(C) 8263/2024 & W.P.(C) 8301/2024 have been filed by the Petitioners i.e. Gurjit Singh Bains and Sandeep Arora respectively, under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned show cause notice bearing F. no. DRI/MZU/F/ENQ (INT)100/2014/10175 dated 30th December, 2014 and the Order-in-Original bearing no. 74/2024/KP/ADDL.COMMR/IMP/ICDTKD dated 30th March, 2024 passed consequent to the said show cause notice. 3. The brief background is that a Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter 'DRI') investigation was initiated a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ettlement Commission heard the parties and after considering the entire matter, passed an order dated 13th April 2016 wherein the commission settled the amounts payable by Ms. Kulpreet Kaur. The relevant portion of the said order is set out below:- "14. The Bench has carefully considered the material available on record and submissions made by both the sides at the time of hearing. The facts of the case and the narration given in the SCN arc undisputed. Based on the intelligence and subsequent investigation, it was revealed that applicant had grossly undervalued the imported good and had hatched well-planned conspiracy to evade payment of appropriate Custom Duty. The undervaluation on the part of the applicant has been adm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tances of the case, Bench imposes a penalty of Rs 1,50,000/- ( One Lakh fifty thousand only)/- on the applicant under the provisions invoked in the SCN and grants them immunity from penalty in excess of the said amount. Fine: As goods are not available for confiscation, the Bench refrains from imposing any redemption fine. Prosecution: Subject to the payment of the aforesaid amounts, the Bench grants immunity to the applicant from prosecution under the Act and Rules made there-under in so far as this case is concerned. ........ 17. The case is settled in respect of the applicant mentioned above and the Revenue is free to take action against the notices in the SCN as deemed fit." 7. As can be seen from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....affidavit, the stand of the Respondent is that the matter was placed in the call book from time to time but due to constant changes in the legal position, the same could not be adjudicated. The Respondent states that the case was transferred in the call book on 29th March, 2018 and accordingly, the noticees were duly informed on 26th March, 2021. Again, it is stated that on 31st March, 2022, there was re-assignment of roles of various officers and in view thereof, there may have been a delay in adjudication. 11. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that now that the Order-in Original has been passed, the Petitioners may be relegated to redeem their appellate remedy. 12. The Court has heard the ld. Counsels and considered the matters....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e confers is not liable to be construed as sanctioning lethargy or indolence. Ultimately it is incumbent upon the authority to establish that it was genuinely hindered and impeded in resolving the dispute with reasonable speed and dispatch. A statutory authority when faced with such a challenge would be obligated to prove that it was either impracticable to proceed or it was constricted by factors beyond its control which prevented it from moving with reasonable expedition. This principle would apply equally to cases falling either under the Customs Act, the 1994 Act or the CGST Act." Vijay Enterprises & Anr. v. The Principal Commissioner of Customs & Anr. In W.P.(C) 5809/2024 and W.P.(C) 15463/2023. "23. A perusal of the ....