2003 (7) TMI 86

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l of Entry on 5th October, 1999 for clearance of the goods as 'Damar Batu'. The Customs authorities on examination of the said goods found that the consignment contained Ball Bearings worth Rs. 14,22,178/- CIF and Damar Batu valued at Rs. 57,074/-. Further investigation carried out by Customs Officers revealed that in the past using the same modus operandi, the Respondent No. 1 had clandestenly cleared several consignments of Ball Bearing without payment of duty. Based on the investigation, a Show Cause Notice dated 29th March, 2000 was issued to the Respondent No. 1 calling upon them to show cause as to why imported goods should not be confiscated and duty amounting to Rs. 2,45,83,219/- in respect of earlier consignments should not be reco....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iled by the importer. The Respondent No. 1 opposed the Review Application on the ground that the Settlement Commission had no power to review its own order unless the power of review is expressly conferred by the statute. By an order dated 24th October, 2001, the Settlement Commission without giving a clear finding on the preliminary issue as to whether the review was maintainable or not, held that the application filed by the Respondent No. 1 was maintainable before the Settlement Commission and further directed the Revenue to implement the interim order passed by the Commission forthwith. Challenging both the above orders the Revenue has filed the present petition. 5.We have heard Counsel on both sides. The basic issue as to whether th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1970 SC 1273). In the present case admittedly no such power of Review is conferred upon the Settlement Commission. Therefore, the order dated 24th October, 2001 passed by the Commission on the Review Application being without jurisdiction the same cannot be sustained. Thus, in the first order passed by the Commission of 20/23rd February, 2001 the jurisdictional aspect was neither raised nor considered and in the second order dated 24th October, 2001 the issue of jurisdiction of the Commission is considered, but the order itself is without jurisdiction. 8.Under these circumstances, we deem it proper to set aside the order of the Commission dated 24th October, 2001 being without jurisdiction for want of power to review its own order and di....