TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (7) TMI 113
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 671/2005, C. Harishankar, Sr. Counsel and S.N. Kantawala, Adv.,i/b., Yogesh Rohira, Adv. in W.P. No. 2430/2004, C. Harishankar, Sr. Counsel and S.N. Kantawala, Adv.,i/b., Yogesh Rohira, Adv. in W.P. No. 2430/2004, Madhur Baya, Adv. in W.P. No. 1051/2005, P. Balakram, Adv., i/b., V.M. Doiphode, Adv. in W.P. No. 2/2004, A.J. Rana, Sr. Counsel, H.V. Mehta and P.S. Jetley, Advs. in W.P. No. 507/2004 and A.J. Rana, Sr. Counsel, P.S. Jetley, S.M. Shah and Y.R. Mishra, Adv. in W.P. No. 2379/2004 For the Respondent : D.B. Shroff, Rustomjee and Arman Dalal, Advs., i/b., Croford Bayley & Co. in W.P. No. 115/2004, C. Harishankar and S.N. Kantawala, Advs., i/b., Yogesh Rohira, Adv. in W.P. Nos. 1636 and 9995/2004, A.M. Sethna, Adv. in W.P. No. 4381/2005, Y. Shinde, Public Prosecutor in Criminal Writ Petition No. 671/2005, A.J. Rana, Sr. Counsel, P.S. Jetley, H.V. Mehta, Y.S. Bhate and Y.R. Mishra, Advs. in W.P. No. 2430/2004, A.J. Rana, Sr. Counsel, P.S. Jetley and H.V. Mehta, Advs. in W.P. No. 1051/2005, A.J. Rana, Sr. Counsel, K.J. Presswala and D.S. Jetley, Advs. in W.P. No. 2/2004, V. Shreedharan, Sr. Counsel, Prakash Shah, Jitu Motwani and Bharat Raichandani, Advs., i/b., PDS Legal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 117 read with Section 28 of the Customs Act. Out of the seven show cause notices, admittedly, with regard to two show cause notices the amount involved was less than Rs. 2 lakhs and hence the Settlement Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. It is the main contention of Mr. Rana that the companies or the persons who evade the customs duty fraudulently, cannot avail of the benefit of approaching the Settlement Commission. Mr. Rana thereafter took us through the provisions of Section 127-A of the Customs Act. Section 127-A(b) defines a "case", reads as under:- "Case" means any proceeding under this Act or any other Act for the levy, assessment and collection of customs duty, or any proceeding by way of appeal or revision in connection with such levy, assessment or collection, which may be pending before a proper officer or the Central Government on the date on which an application under sub-section (1) of Section 127B is made." 3. Mr. Rana also brought to our notice the main provision contained in Section 127B, whereby an application for settlement of cases is made to the Settlement Commission. Section 127-B reads as under :- 127B. Application for settlement of c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounsel for the Customs Department has contended that the application under Section 127B of the said Act can only be made if the Applicant has filed a Bill of Entry with regard to the import of goods (shipping bill in respect of export) and a show cause notice has been issued to him by the proper officer in relation to such a Bill of Entry. Unless these two essential conditions viz. filing of Bill of Entry as well as issuance of show cause notice are fulfilled, no party can approach the Settlement Commission. Mr. Rana contended that the word "case" has been defined under Section 127A(b). He emphasised that, reading the requirement that there should be a "case", a show cause notice referred to therein, would mean a show cause notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act for short levy where there has been no collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts except regarding misclassification. Mr. Rana contended that only in case of short levy such a show cause notice can be issued and there should be no suppression of facts except regarding the misclassification. To put in other words, Mr. Rana contended that in case of mis-declaration or fraud or any other ground, a party cannot ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h an application will be accepted only where the Applicant has filed a bill of entry or shipping bill under the Customs Act, 1962. Only cases where show cause notice or demand notice for recovery of duty has been received by the Applicant will be entertained. 5. Mr. Rana thereafter brought to our notice the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) v. B.N. Bhattacharjee and Another, reported in (1979) 4 SCC 121, wherein the issue with regard to setting up of the Settlement Commission under Chapter XIX-A with regard to recovery of income tax was considered. The relevant part of paragraph No. 68 in the aforesaid judgment, reads as under:- "It is not inappropriate to state that the policy of the law as disclosed in Chapter XIXA is not to provide a rescue shelter for big tax-dodgers who indulge in criminal activities by approaching the Settlement Commission. The Settlement Commission will certainly take due note of the gravity of economic offences on the wealth of the nation which the Wanchoo Committee had emphasised and will exercise its power of immunisation against criminal prosecutions by using its power only sparingly and in d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... discovery of particulars of fraud perpetrated by the assessee, as the case may be - nor even to those who come to the commission to forestall the investigation/inquiries which have reached a stage where the department is in possession of material which though not sufficient to establish such concealment or fraud, is such that it is likely to establish it - may be some more material is required to establish it fully. The Commission has to keep all this in mind while deciding whether to allow the application to be proceeded before it or to reject it." "22. If we look at the facts of the case in the light of the legal position adumbrated hereinabove, it would be clear that the application filed by the respondent before the Commission was not maintainable and could not have been allowed to be proceeded with. Firstly, the respondent did not disclose, in its application under Section 245-C, any income which was not disclosed before the Assessing Officer. This was a case where the respondent was claiming certain losses, which he sought to set-off against its other income. If the respondent's case was true, it would not have been liable to pay any tax for the reason that entire inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Supreme Court has observed as under:- "It was a gross case where the assessee brazenly and deliberately perpetrated fraud upon the Revenue with a view to evade the taxes legitimately and lawfully payable by him. The fraud played by him, which was discovered by the Income Tax Officer even by the date of submission of report by the Commissioner, disentitled the assessee from claiming that his case should be admitted for settlement by the Commission. There is neither law in its favour nor equity. The fact that it has admitted its fraud in its application is of no consequence since its fraud was already discovered by the Income Tax Officer by her own extensive and elaborate inquiries." 8. Relying on the aforesaid authorities, Mr. Rana sought to contend that a party who seeks to avail of a remedy of Settlement Commission under the Customs Act, ought to come voluntarily and must come with clean hands. To put in other words, if a party has committed fraud and if he comes to the Settlement Commission after discovery of the fraud, the Commission ought not to entertain such an application. Rana thereafter referred to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court deliv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ltd. reported in (1994) 2 SCC 374, wherein the Supreme Court has dealt with the provision of Section 245A(b) of the Customs Act. Thereafter, Mr. Rana, relied upon the observations of the learned Single Judge in Paragraph No. 16 of the aforesaid judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs (AIR) Chennai v. Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission referred to hereinabove, wherein the learned Single Judge observed as under :- "What was held by the Supreme Court in the above judgments is existence of the power of the Settlement Commission to entertain an application from a person who in act of bona fide misclassified the goods imported and had disclosed the same before the Department even before the Department would investigate and detect the concealment. However, in a case where the concealment itself has not been disclosed, till such time, it was detected by the authorities through a detailed investigation after putting their efforts to find out as to who is the cause for such concealment or smuggling or the fraud played on the department, the importer cannot be considered as a person bona fidely misclassified the goods and thereby resorting to the remedy of settlement b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....This is not a case of review at all. It is a case of fresh applications made subsequent to the amendment of the section concerned in 1991 when the objection of the Commissioner was not to be called for or taken into account." A perusal of the paragraph Nos. 5, 6 and 7 of the aforesaid judgment clearly indicate that the observations of the Supreme Court in fact assist the Respondents inasmuch as the Supreme Court has clearly held that even in case where the application made to the Settlement Commission is rejected and subsequently the changed position in law in 1991 wherein the provisions with regard to objection was removed, a party is again entitled to file a fresh application with regard to the very same assessment year. To put in other words, even when the Income Tax Department thinks the case to be of serious concealment and fraud, and as the embargo of Commissioner's objection was removed, the Supreme Court has categorically held that the application after amendment in 1991 was valid and can be entertained. 12. Mr. Rana referred to another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Jagdish Cancer & Research Centre reported in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut that if the contention of Dr. Syed Mohammed that in order to constitute short-levy, some amount should have been assessed as payable by way of duty so as to make R.10 applicable, is accepted the result will be rather anomalous. For instance if due to collusion (which means collusion between a party and an officer of the Department) a sum of Rs. 2/- is managed to be assessed by way of duty when really more than thousand times that amount is payable and if the smaller amount of duty co-assessed has been paid, the Department will have to take action within three months for payment of the proper amount of duty. On the other hand, if due to collusion again an order of nil assessment is passed, in which case no duty would have been paid, according to the appellants Rule 10-A will apply. We do not see any reason to distinguish the above two cases one from the other. Both are cases of collusion and if an assessee in collusion manages to have a petty amount of duty assessed and paid he can effectively plead limitation of three months under Rule 10. Whereas in the same case of collusion where no duty has been levied there will be no period of limitation. In our opinion, that will not be a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion for which there is no advertisement under the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 12, the person on the panel list of preceding academic year in question, cannot be absorbed or be appointed. The word "otherwise" has to be read, as ejusdem generis that is to say in group similar to death, resignation, long leave, vacancy, invalidation, person not joining after being duly selected." 15. Mr. Rana referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Luxmi Tea Company Limited v. Pradip Kumar Sarkar - 1989 Suppl.2 Supreme Court Cases 656 to contend that the words "or otherwise" should take colour from the context in which they are used. Mr. Rana thereafter referred to another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mansukhlal Dhanraj Jain and Ors v. Eknath Vithal Ogale - (1995) (2) SCC 665 to contend that there is a distinction between the words "relating to" and "for". To put in other words, the learned Counsel Mr. Rana contended that for the word used "for" the scope will be limited whereas for the words used "relating to" the scope would be wider. In that context he relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elying upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court, contended that the Settlement Commission ought not to have entertained the application wherein the fraud is involved or misdeclaration is involved or wherein the confiscation notice has been issued. Mr. Rana has contended that the Settlement Commission ex-facie does not have jurisdiction at all to entertain the application. It is not that the Settlement Commission can entertain and thereafter reject the same. The contention is that the Settlement Commission does not even have the jurisdiction to look at these complaints in such cases. The complaints will have to be thrown out at the threshold even without considering the merits of the applications. 17. Mr. Shroff, the learned Counsel for the Respondents in Writ Petition No. 115 of 2004 pointed out that the first Respondent Hoganas (India) Ltd. used to import a particular type of iron powder viz. "HGRGSI" which was not used in the final product that was exported, as the same was incapable of being so used. It is the contention of the learned Counsel Mr. Shroff that the same was used in the manufacture of the exported Iron Powder, but not to the extent de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch dutiable goods in respect of which the applicant admits short levy on account of misclassification or otherwise of goods. 19. Mr. Shroff thereafter contended that if one were to look to the provisions of Section 127B, it is explicitly clear that what is mandatory is that there must be a bill of entry or a shipping bill in respect of import or export of goods, and there must be a show cause of notice being issued by the proper officer in relation to such a bill of entry or shipping bill. He has submitted that the party concerned must make full and true disclosure of his duty liability which has not been disclosed before the proper officer, and the manner in which such liability has been incurred and the additional amount of customs duty accepted to be payable by him. Referring to the said provision of Section 127B, Mr. Shroff has further contended that the application must contain such other particulars as may be specified by rules including the particulars of such dutiable goods in respect of which he admits short levy on account of misclassification or otherwise of goods. Mr. Shroff however contended that till date there are no rules framed under Section 127B, which fact, is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nil assessment would not come within the meaning of a short levy, cannot be tenable. On the contrary, Mr. Shroff submits that the Supreme Court has categorically held that even a nil assessment would come within the meaning of a short levy as well as non-leyy. Mr. Shroff contended that Section 127B does not in any manner indicate that the Settlement Commission ought not to entertain any application with regard to fraud or wilful misdeclaration or even smuggling. He contended that this Court ought not to incorporate the words in Section 127B to exclude the Settlement Commission's jurisdiction by stating that when there is a fraud, misdeclaration or smuggling the Commission has no jurisdiction. He submits that the wording of Section 127B is explicitly clear, and what is mandatory is that there should be a bill of entry and there should be a show cause notice with regard to the said bill of entry being issued by a proper officer. There are no other essentials which have been prescribed. Mr. Shroff has contended that that the argument of the learned Counsel for the Department that if any confiscation notice is issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act the Commission ought not to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Income Tax, Madras v. Express Newspapers Limited - (1994) 2 SCC 374 Mr. Shroff has contended that the said judgment was dealing with the cases pertaining to the period prior to the amendment of 1991. The Supreme Court was in fact not dealing with the law as amended from 1991 and as such, Mr. Shroff contended that the observations of the Supreme Court in the said judgment will be of no assistance to the Department. Mr. Shroff contended that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bhaskar Picture Palace - (1999) 9 SCC 232, in fact, helps the private parties, in the sense, the application which was rejected earlier by the Settlement Commission was allowed to be revived afresh in view of the changed position of law after 1991. Mr. Shroff, the learned Counsel for the Respondents has pointed out that the object of providing such Settlement Commission or such provisions is to unearth the black money. The Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Garg v. Union of India & Others - (1981) 4 SCC 675 has observed as under :- "The Court must always remember that "legislation is directed to practical problems that the economic mechanism is highly sensitive and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cted this method to unearth unaccounted money. Admittedly, there is manifold increase in unaccounted money and wealth. Despite stringent taxation laws as stated earlier, for various reasons, it appears that it is not possible for the executive to unearth unaccounted money. In such a situation, if Parliament decided to give some inducement to holders of black money and allow them to join the mainstream by disclosing their unaccounted income, it cannot be said that the impugned legislation is so reeking with immorality that it could be condemned as arbitrary or irrational." It may be noted here that the aforesaid judgment of the Bombay High Court was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of All India Federation of Tax Practioners and Another v. Union of India & Ors. - (1998) 231 ITR 24. Mr. Shroff also brought to our notice that the Delhi High Court has also dealt with such a scheme in the case of All India Federation of Tax Practitioners v. Union of India - 1998 (104) E.L.T. 595 (Del.) to unearth the black money. 24. The learned Counsel Mr. Harishankar who is appearing for the private parties in four of the Writ Petitions, sought to contend that the Revenue's sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to our notice the observations in paragraph No. 15 of the said judgment in the case of Express Newspaper's case. The Supreme Court though considering the case in the year 1994, but with regard to the period prior to 1991 was fully aware of the merit of the said amendment. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph No. 15 of the aforesaid judgment read as under:- "It is not necessary to notice the effect of the above legislative change brought about in 1991". That is to say, as the Supreme Court was not concerned with the amended law, as in that case of Express Newspapers, the Supreme Court was dealing with the case pertaining to the assessment years prior to 1991. 25. Referring to the judgment in the case of CIT v. Bhaskar Picture Palace - 1999 (9) SCC 232, Mr. Harishankar has pointed out that the Supreme Court has clearly held to the contrary as it was dealing with the post-1991 case that "the batch of cases concerns Section 245-D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as it stood prior to 1991 and thereafter". It is pointed out by Mr. Shroff that the judgment in the case of Bhaskar Picture Palace in fact assist the private parties and not the Department. Mr. Hari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e penalties which the Customs authorities can impose but that is more in the nature of proceedings in rem than proceedings in personam, the object being to confiscate the offending goods which have been dealt with contrary to the provisions of the law and in respect of the confiscation also an option is given to the owner of the goods to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine as the officer thinks fit. All this is for the enforcement of the levy of and safeguarding the recovery of the sea customs duties." 27. Mr. Harishankar referred to and relied upon another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Badaku Joti Savant v. State of Mysore - 1978 (2) E.L.T. 323 (S.C.), wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :- "The main purpose of the Act to levy and collect excise duties and Central Excise Officers have been appointed thereunder for this main purpose in order that they may carry out their duties in this behalf powers have been conferred on them to see that duty is not evaded and persons guilty of evasion of duty are brought to book. Section 9 of the Act provides for punishment which may extend to imprisonment upto 6 months or to fine upto Rs. 2000/- or bo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proviso to Section 125(1) also makes it obligatory on the adjudging authority to evaluate the fine which shall not exceed the market price of the goods confiscated. Therefore, there is a mandatory requirement on the adjudicating officer before permitting the redemption of goods, firstly, to assess the market value of the goods and then to levy any duty or charge payable on such goods apart from the redemption fine that he intends to levy on sub-clause (1) of that Section." 28. Analysing the scope of Section 127B of the Customs Act, Mr. Harishankar has contended that the application should contain the following: - (a) a full and true disclosure of duty liability, which has not been disclosed before the proper officer, (b) the manner in which such liability has been incurred, (c) The additional amount of duty accepted to be payable by the Applicant, and (d) Such other particulars as may be specified by rules. To put in other words, the first three are the essential conditions and the last (forth) condition for "such other particulars as may be specified by rules" will be in accordance with the specified rules. There is no dispute that till today, no rules have been framed i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... an innocuous situation since the very provision under Section 127-B (1) contemplates that there must be a Bill of Entry and in relatin to such a bill of entry a show cause notice has been issued by a proper officer. If the Department were to be totally unaware then there cannot be any show cause notice. The learned Counsel Mr. Harishankar contended that after the show cause notice is issued, a party discloses all particulars and true facts and approaches the Settlement Commission. Therefore, the contention that the Department should be totally unaware of fraud or misdeclaration or smuggling etc., cannot be sustained. He also emphasised that this Court ought not to legislate by incorporating the words which are not found under Section 127B in the sense, this Court ought not to exclude the cases involving fraud, smuggling, misdeclaration. 31. Mr. Harishankar further submitted that the powers of Settlement Commission under Chapter XIV-A are exhaustive. Referring to the provisions of Section 127-C(1) of the Customs Act, Mr. Harishankar has contended that even at the initial stage after receiving application, the Settlement Commission calls for report from the Commissioner conce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ission after declaring that the Settlement has become void, would direct the original authority to proceed with the regular assessment, thus the proceedings would stand revived from the stage at which the application was allowed to be proceeded with. 33. Referring to the provisions of Section 127-D of the Customs Act, Mr. Harishankar has pointed out that the Settlement Commission has been conferred with the jurisdiction to order provisional attachment of the applicant's property to secure the interests of the Revenue. Even in suspect cases, where the Settlement Commission feels that the interests of the Revenue may be jeopardized during the pendency of the settlement application, it can order provisional attachment of the applicant's property, and this power of attachment of property, too, is not possessed by any adjudicating authority. Referring to the provisions of Section 127-E of the Customs Act, Mr. Harishankar has pointed out that the Settlement Commission can open the completed proceedings for proper disposal of the case before it. According to him, this power, too, is not vested by any adjudicating authority. In support of this submission, Mr. Harishankar has refer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Section 127-I(1) if the Settlement Commission at any stage finds non-cooperation by the Applicant, the Settlement Commission has jurisdiction to send the matter back for adjudication. Therefore the contention of Mr. Harishankar is that the Settlement Commission has absolute jurisdiction to reject the application for settlement on a variety of reasons, including the "circumstances and nature of the case" or the "complexity" thereof, and such power is virtually unfettered. Therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel Mr. Harishankar is that, that this Court ought not to construe the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission in a narrow manner as various safeguards have already been provided under Chapter XIV-A. According to him, restricting the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission by such a narrow interpretation, would, infact, highly be prejudicial and against the public interest. 35. Mr. Harishankar, the learned Counsel appearing for the private parties, while dealing with the submissions of the learned Counsel Mr. Rana for the Department with regard to the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of C.C. v. Customs & Central Excise Settlement Commission - 2002 (1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on that the party cannot come to the Settlement Commission after being caught, in the sense, the party ought to come to the Settlement Commission before being caught. This is the anomoly from the provisions of the Income Tax Act whereas in the Customs Act there is no provision of coming with clean hands. On the contrary, the show cause notice has to be issued and then only the party can approach. Mr. Harishankar submitted that the judgment of the Madras High Court cannot be sustained and the same ought not to be acted upon as the same does not lay down the correct law. With regard to the main contention of Mr. Rana that in case of fraud the Settlement Commission ought not to have jurisdiction, in that context, Mr. Harishankar contended that the expression "fraud" is wider expression in the sense it can be evasion or it can be much more than that. In that context he brought to our notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Essar Oil Ltd. - 2004 (172) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.) wherein the Supreme Court has construed that even the misrepresentation amounts to fraud. Mr. Harishankar contended that there is no question of going into the question of greate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Settlement Commission to direct the petitioners to pay the customs duty with interest. Although the Settlement Commission has levied interest at a percentage, much less than what was agreed to pay by the petitioners in their bond and legal undertaking, the same being not an issue in this petition, we are not expressing any opinion in that behalf. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that once the petitioners committed breach of the terms of the exemption Notification No. 204/92, the Customs authorities were entitled to enforce the declaration with bond and legal undertaking given by the petitioners and recover customs duty with interest. If the customs authorities were entitled to recover duty with interest, then no fault could be found with the Settlement Commission in directing the petitioners to pay customs duty with interest." 37. The learned Counsel Mr. Shreedharan has further contended that the Settlement Commission's jurisdiction is wide enough to entertain any application subject to fulfilment of conditions of filing the Bill of Entry, issuance of show cause notice, and furnishing of all the details as per the prescribed form. According to him the jurisdiction o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are sought as per the form prescribed by the Customs Department. In the said form another vital fact to be noted is that under clause (9) of the said form the details of date of seizure, if any, is required to be given. The seizure can only arise if goods are liable for confiscation. Therefore, the notice for confiscation under Section 124 or under Section 111 would automatically get covered under Section 127-B. 40. Over and above, again going back to the main section, it is very clear as indicated therein, that the application should contain full and true disclosure of the duty liability which has not been disclosed before the proper officer, the manner in which such a liability has been incurred, the additional amount of customs duty accepted to be payable by him. The above section lays down that all the above details have to be furnished in such an application. Over and above, as referred to hereinabove, as per the provisions of above section, "such other particulars as may be specified by the rules including the particulars of such dutiable goods in respect of which he admits short levy on account of misclassification or otherwise of the goods", should also be mentioned by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which obviously would necessitate the Applicant being involved in a serious fraud wherein he is likely to be prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code or any other penal law. If that be so, one cannot say that the Settlement Commission has jurisdiction only to deal with the bonafide case of misclassification or at the most wilful case of misclassification. 42. One cannot minimise the scope of jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission without any express provisions found in the said Chapter, whereas on the contrary, the provisions as indicated herein above clearly show that the Settlement Commission has a very wide jurisdiction to entertain all kinds of settlement claim applications with the liberty to reject the same even at the preliminary stage, depending upon the nature and circumstances of the case and the complexity of the case. Therefore it is not the case that the Settlement Commission is forced to entertain and accept all settlement applications. After the scrutiny, it may or may not entertain the same. It is one thing to say that the Settlement Commission does not have the jurisdiction at all to look at the claim which is not pertaining to the short levy due to misclassifica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r mind that the Settlement Commission has jurisdiction to entertain all kinds of applications for settlement, provided they satisfy the mandatory requirements of filing the Bill of Entry/Snipping Bill and issuance of a show cause notice in relation to such a Bill of Entry/Shipping Bill and by making a full and true disclosure of a duty liability which was not disclosed earlier before the proper officer and the manner in which such liability has been incurred and the additional amount of customs duty accepted to be payable by him and such other particulars as may be specified by rules including the particulars of such dutiable goods in respect of which he admits short levy on account of misclassification or otherwise of goods. These are the essential requirements for making an application under Section 127-B of the Customs Act, which are also clear from the wording of the very section as well as from the particulars to be given in the Form prescribed by the Department, as we have indicated herein above. 46. So far as the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission - 2002 (13....