Under Water Services Co. Ltd. And ... vs Union Of India And Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 5294 Bom

                                                            wp.1523.15. judgment.doc




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                         
                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                                 
                            WRIT PETITION NO.1523 OF 2015


    Under Water Services Company Limited




                                                                
    and Others                                                     ..Petitioners
    Office at: 7 MbPT Building, Malet Bunder
    Mumbai- 400 009
             Vs.
    Union of India and Others                                       ...Respondents




                                                      
                                      
    Mr. Sujay Kantawala a/w Mr Brijesh Pathak, for the Petitioners.
    Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly, for the Respondents.
                                     
                                            CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. &
                                                     B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.

Reserved On :- August 29, 2016.

Pronounced On :- September 16, 2016.

JUDGMENT :- [ Per B. P. Colabawalla, J ]

1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of

parties, rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. By this Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, exception is taken to the final order dated

Aswale 1/25

wp.1523.15. judgment.doc

31st October, 2014 [for short the "impugned order"] passed by

the Settlement Commission Additional Bench, Customs and

Central Excise, Mumbai (Respondent No.3 herein). The impugned

order has been passed by the 3rd Respondent in the Settlement

Applications filed by the Petitioners arising out of a common Show

Cause Notice ("SCN") dated 9th February, 2012. The Settlement

Commission that passed the impugned order comprised of three

Members. One Member settled the case of the Petitioners (the

minority view) whereas the other two Members rejected the

Settlement Applications filed by the Petitioners and sent the

matter back for adjudication (the majority view). Taking

exception to the majority view, the present Writ Petition has been

filed.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present controversy

are as follows:-

(a) The Petitioners entered into a Memorandum of

Agreement ("MOA") dated 8th November, 2006 with a

party from Singapore for buying a Barge/Pontoon at an

agreed price of US $ 1,300,000. The said price also

Aswale 2/25

wp.1523.15. judgment.doc

included the cost of equipment such as crane,

accommodation module, fenders etc and their

fitments. Under the said MOA, various separate

invoices were issued for sale of the said Barge /

Pontoon, the said equipments and the fitment charges.

Upon import of the said Barge / Pontoon, the

Petitioners declared the same as a Barge for claiming

benefit of duty exemption (effective rate of duty Nil) as

per Item No.352 of the said Notification No.21/2002-

Cus dated 1st March, 2002. The said Barge / Pontoon

was later registered as USC-1 with the Indian Register

of Shipping. As per the advice received by the 1st

Petitioner, the said Barge / Pontoon was cleared by

availing benefit of the said Notification and the Barge

was assessed at NIL rate of duty by classifying it under

CTH 89011040. The fitments like the crane,

accommodation module, fenders etc were assessed

separately and a Customs Duty of Rs. 65,41,741/- was

inadvertently paid on the said fitments.

              (b)      Thereafter, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence



    Aswale                                          3/25





                                                     wp.1523.15. judgment.doc

("DRI"), Jamnagar initiated certain investigations

leading to seizure of the said Barge / Pontoon on 24th

October, 2011. For provisional release of the same, the

Applicant deposited a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs on 28th

October, 2011 and thereafter the seized Barge /

Pontoon was provisionally released. During the

investigation being done by the DRI, it dawned on the

1st Petitioner that a mistake had occurred, in as much

as they had paid customs duty on the equipment and

fitting charges separately which otherwise were part

of the main Barge / Pontoon, as was evident from the

Bill of Entry No. 755132 dated 24th March, 2007.

According to the Petitioners, the Barge having been

classified in CTH 89011040, no duty should have been

paid on whole of the Barge including the equipment

thereof by virtue of they being covered under Item No.

352 of Notification No. 21/2002.

(c) Be that as it may, the Petitioners thereafter received a

common SCN dated 9th February, 2012, demanding

duty of Rs. 43,80,845/- for the Barge / Pontoon. After

Aswale 4/25

wp.1523.15. judgment.doc

receiving the said SCN, the Petitioners decided that

they did not want to contest the same and settle their

case as per the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.

Accordingly, in or around 22nd October, 2013, all three

Petitioners filed 3 separate Settlement Applications.

Even though the SCN demanded duty in the sum of

Rs.43,80,845/-, the Petitioners admitted the duty

amount of Rs.63,27,559/- for the said Barge / Pontoon

as a whole including the equipments and fitments

thereon. Hence, additional duty in the sum of

Rs.19,46,714/- was admitted by the Petitioner. A

detailed calculation of this admission was also annexed

to the Settlement Applications. Accordingly, the

Petitioners prayed for (i) their case being admitted

and settled as a whole; (ii) grant of immunity from

imposition of any penalty and/or fine; (iii) grant of

immunity from prosecution; and (iv) refund of the

balance amount as per the pleasure of the Settlement

Commission.

              (d)      After these Settlement Applications were filed by all



    Aswale                                          5/25





                                                          wp.1523.15. judgment.doc

the three Petitioners, the office of the 3rd Respondent

issued a notice dated 29th October, 2013 under section

127C(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 inter alia directing

the Petitioners to explain in writing as to why these

Applications should be allowed to be proceeded with.

By the said notice, an answer was also sought for in

relation to the discrepancies mentioned in the said

notice.

(e) The Petitioners filed a detailed reply to this notice vide

their Advocate's letter dated 7th November, 2013 and

furnished all the details. A perusal of this letter

indicates that all the discrepancies that were raised by

the 3rd Respondent, were duly answered by the

Petitioners. Thereafter, being satisfied with the

explanations given by the Petitioners, the Settlement

Commission, vide its order dated 12th November,

2013, allowed these Applications to be proceeded with

and the same was duly informed to the Petitioners vide

its letter dated 14th November, 2013 (page 146 of the

paper book).

    Aswale                                        6/25





                                                             wp.1523.15. judgment.doc




                                                                                            
              (f)      After the Settlement Applications were allowed to be

proceeded with, the first hearing of these Applications

took place on 26th March, 2014 when none appeared

on behalf of the Revenue and neither any report was

filed by the Revenue. Accordingly, Respondent No.3

was pleased to direct the Revenue to file its report

within seven days. Finally, the Revenue filed its report

vide its letter dated 15th April, 2014 which was

received by the office of the 3rd Respondent on 19th

May, 2014. In answer to the said report, the

Petitioners also filed their detailed written

submissions (which are annexed at Exhs "I", "J" and

"K" to the Petition).

(g) Thereafter, final hearing of the Settlement

Applications was conducted on 9th October, 2014

wherein the Petitioners made detailed arguments and

also relied upon several decisions not only of the

Settlement Commission, Chennai Bench but also of

different High Courts, including one of this Court.

Aswale 7/25

wp.1523.15. judgment.doc

After hearing the parties, the Settlement Commission

(Respondent No.3) passed its final order on 31st

October, 2014 (the impugned order). As mentioned

earlier, the Settlement Commission comprised of three

Members. One Member of the Settlement Commission

settled the case of the Petitioners and ordered that (i)

since the duty was settled at Rs.43,80,845/- and

Petitioners had already paid more than this amount,

no further amount was payable on this score; (ii) since

excess payment has been made in this case, there was

no question of payment of any interest; (iii) a fine of

Rs.50,000/- be imposed as a fine in lieu of confiscation

and granted immunity from fine in excess of this

amount; (iv) a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- be imposed on

Petitioner No.1; and (v) a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- and

Rs.15,000/-, be imposed on Petitioner Nos.3 and 2

respectively. Immunity was also granted from

prosecution under the Customs Act, 1962. As far as

the other two Members are concerned, they disagreed

with the findings of the First Member basically on the

ground that the Petitioners had not made proper

Aswale 8/25

wp.1523.15. judgment.doc

disclosures or co-operated with the Commission by

admitting any additional duty and interest in terms of

the demand in the SCN dated 09.02.2012, and as

required under Section 127B. According to them, the

disclosures for settlement were only a request to

reclassify the fitments to the Pontoon, alongwith the

Pontoon, and adjust the duty paid initially in 2007

against the fitments classified under the respective

CTH. In view of the above, the other two Members

rejected the Settlement Applications of the Petitioners

for not making proper disclosures amounting to non-

co-operation in the proceedings and non-payment of

any admitted duty and interest as required under

clause (c) to the 1st proviso to section 127B(1), and

accordingly sent the matter back to the proper officer

in terms of Section 127-I of the Customs Act, 1962 for

disposal of the SCN as required under law. It is this

majority view that has been impugned in this Writ

Petition.

4. In this factual background, Mr. Kantawala, learned

Aswale 9/25

wp.1523.15. judgment.doc

counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, submitted that the

findings of the Settlement Commission are wholly perverse. He

submitted that the mandate of Section 127B inter alia clearly

stipulates that no Settlement Application shall be entertained

unless the Applicant has paid the additional amount of customs

duty accepted by him along with interest [clause (c) to the 1st

proviso to section 127B(1)]. He submitted that this was a

condition precedent before the Applicant approached the 3rd

Respondent for settlement of its case. If this condition precedent

was not satisfied, the Settlement Application was liable to be

rejected at the initial stage itself for non-fulfillment of this

mandatory requirement.

5. In the facts of the present case, Mr. Kantawala

submitted that as mandated by section 127C(1), the Settlement

Commission issued a notice dated 29th October, 2013 to the

Petitioners, wherein a specific query / discrepancy was raised that

the Petitioners had not deposited the full duty along with interest

and the same was a mandatory requirement before their

Settlement Applications could be entertained by the Settlement

Commission. In light of this, the Petitioners were asked to give

Aswale 10/25

wp.1523.15. judgment.doc

their written explanation within a period of 7 days. In reply to this

notice, the Petitioners, by their letter dated 7th November, 2013

stated that the Petitioners had already erroneously paid an

amount of Rs.65,41,741/-, at the time of clearance of the Barge

covered by Bill of Entry No.755132 dated 24th March, 2007.

Additionally the Petitioners had paid a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- on

28th October, 2011 towards customs duty during investigations.

The Petitioners therefore stated that the amounts already paid

were far more than what was demanded under the SCN and

interest accrued thereon. This explanation of the Petitioners was

duly accepted by the 3rd Respondent and thereafter an order was

passed on 12th November, 2013, ordering that the Settlement

Applications be allowed to be proceeded with. This being the case,

Mr. Kantawala submitted that the findings of the majority view

that the Petitioners were guilty of non payment of any admitted

duty and interest as required under clause (c) to the 1st proviso to

section 127B(1) was wholly perverse and contrary to the record.

He submitted that once the Settlement Commission, being satisfied

with the explanation given by the Petitioners regarding payment

of duty and interest and allowing the Settlement Applications to be

proceeded with, could not turn around and reject the Settlement

Aswale 11/25

wp.1523.15. judgment.doc

Applications on the specious ground that the Petitioners were

guilty of non payment of any admitted duty and interest as

required under Section 127B.

6. Mr. Kantawala additionally submitted that in the

present case, the majority view came to a totally incorrect and

perverse finding that the present Settlement Applications

disclosed that it was only a request to reclassify the fitments of the

Pontoon, along with the Pontoon, and adjust the duty paid initially

in 2007. In this regard, he brought to our attention the record of

the proceedings before the Commission itself wherein the

submissions of the Advocate for the Petitioners were recorded

that they were not disputing the change in classification proposed

by Revenue in the SCN and that they have now accepted the

classification of the whole Barge with the fittings under heading

8905 which attracts duty of 5%. Mr. Kantawala submitted that

even in the Settlement Applications filed before the Settlement

Commission, it was categorically stated as under:-

"The Applicant submits that the Application filed by it fulfills all the conditions for allowing the same to be proceeded with:

a. It has filed Bill of Entry in respect of import of the said goods and in relation to the same a Show Cause Notice has been issued by the proper officer

Aswale 12/25

wp.1523.15. judgment.doc

b. The additional amount of duty accepted by the applicant in its

application exceeds three lakhs rupees

c. It is submitted that the interest is not applicable on the duty,

however agrees to pay any such interest if determined by the Settlement Commission.

d. It is submitted that no appeal or any matter in respect of the

matters covered by the present application is pending in the Appellate Tribunal or any court

e. The said goods are not covered by the Notification issued under section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 nor any offence

under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) has been committed

f. The present application is not made for interpretation of the classification of the goods under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975

g. The present application is not barred by Section 127L of the Customs Act, 1962"

(emphasis supplied)

7. He, therefore, submitted that the Petitioners had never

disputed the classification as proposed by the Revenue and this

finding of the majority view of the Commission is wholly perverse.

For all the aforesaid reasons, he submitted that the impugned

order cannot be sustained and the same ought to be set aside and

the Settlement Applications filed by the Petitioners be remanded

back to the 3rd Respondent for being decided afresh after giving a

de novo hearing to the Petitioners.

Aswale 13/25

wp.1523.15. judgment.doc

8. On the other hand, Mr. Jetly, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the Respondents, sought to support the

impugned order. He submitted that in the facts of the present

case, admittedly the Petitioners had not paid the amount of duty

along with interest thereon as demanded in the SCN. The

Petitioners were, therefore, guilty of not complying with the

mandatory provisions of Section 127B and hence the 3rd

Respondent (the majority view) had correctly rejected the

Settlement Applications filed by the Petitioners. He additionally

submitted that under the said section (Section 127B), no

Settlement Application could be entertained by the 3rd Respondent

for the interpretation of the classification of the goods under the

Customs Tariff Act, 1975 [4th proviso to section 127B(1)].

According to Mr. Jetly, the present dispute was clearly one of

classification as recorded by the majority view of the 3rd

Respondent, and therefore, he submitted that the majority view in

the impugned order is fully justified and legal and required no

interference by us in our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

Aswale 14/25

wp.1523.15. judgment.doc

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at

length and perused the papers and proceedings in the Writ

Petition as well as the annexures thereto. Before we deal with the

present controversy, it would be necessary to make note of certain

provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and more particularly

Chapter XIV-A thereof, which deals with settlement of cases. This

Chapter contains sections 127A to 127N and was inserted w.e.f.

01-08-1998 by section 102 of Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 (21 of

1998). The object for inserting this Chapter was that the door to

settlement with an errant and defaulting tax-payer was kept open,

keeping in mind the primary objective to raise revenue. The

Legislature was of the view that a rigid attitude would inhibit a

one-time tax evader or an un-intending defaulter from making a

clean breast of his affairs and unnecessarily strain the

investigation resources of the Government. The settlement

machinery was thus meant for providing a chance to a tax-evader

who wants to turn over a new leaf as recommended by the Direct

Taxes Inquiry Committee (popularly known as the 'Wanchoo

Committee'). Keeping the aforesaid objective in mind, this

Chapter viz. Chapter XIV-A, was inserted in the Customs Act,

1962 under which the Settlement Commission (3rd Respondent) is

Aswale 15/25

wp.1523.15. judgment.doc

constituted.

10. Having set out in brief the objects for which Chapter

XIV-A was inserted in the Customs Act, 1962, we shall now turn

our attention to some of the statutory provisions of the said Act.

On the date when the Settlement Applications arising out of the

common SCN dated 9th February, 2012 were filed by the

Petitioners (i.e. on 22nd October, 2013), section 127B read as

under:-

"127-B. Application for settlement of cases. - (1) Any

importer, exporter or any other person (hereinafter referred to as the applicant in this chapter) may, in respect of a case, relating to him make an application, before adjudication to the Settlement Commission to have the case settled, in such form

and in such manner as may be specified by rules, and containing a full and true disclosure of his duty liability which has not been

disclosed before the proper officer, the manner in which such liability has been incurred, 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, under-valuation or inapplicability of exemption notification or otherwise and such application shall be disposed of in the manner hereinafter provided:

Provided that no such application shall be made unless,--

(a) the applicant has filed a bill of entry, or a shipping bill, in respect of import or export of such goods, as the case may be, and in relation to such bill of entry or shipping bill, a show cause notice has been issued to him by the proper officer;

(b) the additional amount of duty accepted by the applicant in his application exceeds three lakh

Aswale 16/25

wp.1523.15. judgment.doc

rupees; and

(c) the applicant has paid the additional amount of

customs duty accepted by him along with interest due under section 28-AB:

Provided further that no application shall be entertained by the Settlement Commission under this sub-section in cases which are pending in the Appellate Tribunal or any court:

Provided also that no application under this sub-section shall be made in relation to goods to which section 123 applies or to goods in relation to which any offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

(61 of 1985) has been committed:

Provided also that no application under this sub-section

shall be made for the interpretation of the classification of the goods under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975).

(1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an application was made under sub-section (1) before the 1st day of June, 2007 but an order under sub-section (1) of section 127-C has not been made before the said date, the

applicant shall within a period of thirty days from the 1st day of June, 2007 pay the accepted duty liability failing which his

application shall be liable to be rejected.

(2) Where any dutiable goods, books of account, other documents or any sale proceeds of the goods have been seized

under section 110, the applicant shall not be entitled to make an application under sub-section (1) before the expiry of one hundred and eighty days from the date of the seizure.

(3) Every application made under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by such fees as may be specified by rules.

(4) An application made under sub-section (1) shall not be allowed to be withdrawn by the applicant."

(emphasis supplied)

11. There have been certain amendments to this section in

Aswale 17/25

wp.1523.15. judgment.doc

2014 and 2015 which are not really germane to decide the

controversy before us. Be that as it may, as can be seen from the

above reproduction, section 127B(1) gives an opportunity to a

person to approach the Settlement Commission to settle a case

relating to him before the same is adjudicated, and have the same

settled. For this purpose, the said person has to make an

Application before the Settlement Commission in such form and in

such manner as specified by the rules and containing a full and

true disclosure of his duty liability which has not been disclosed

before the proper officer, the manner in which such liability is

incurred, the additional amount of customs duty accepted to be

payable by him and such other particulars as may be specified by

the rules. Clause (c) of the 1st proviso to sub-section (1) of section

127B clearly stipulates that no such Settlement Application shall

be made unless the Applicant has paid the additional amount of

customs duty accepted by him along with interest due under

section 28AB. We must mention here that in the year 2014,

Section 127B was amended and inter alia the words "section

28AB", appearing in clause (c) of the 1st proviso to section

127B(1) was substituted with the words "section 28AA". The 4th

proviso to Section 127B(1) stipulates that no Settlement

Aswale 18/25

wp.1523.15. judgment.doc

Application under this sub-section shall be made for interpretation

of the classification of the goods under the Customs Tariff Act,

1975.

12. Thereafter comes section 127C which prescribes the

procedure to be followed on receipt of a Settlement Application

under section 127B. Section 127C, in so far as the same is relevant

for our purposes, reads thus:-

127-C. Procedure on receipt of an application under Section 127-B.--(1) On receipt of an application under Section 127-B, the Settlement Commission shall, within seven days from

the date of receipt of the application, issue a notice to the applicant to explain in writing as to why the application made by him should be allowed to be proceeded with and after taking into consideration the explanation provided by the applicant, the

Settlement Commission, shall, within a period of fourteen days from the date of the notice, by an order, allow the application to

be proceeded with or reject the application, as the case may be, and the proceedings before the Settlement Commission shall abate on the date of rejection :

Provided that where no notice has been issued or no

order has been passed within the aforesaid period by the Settlement Commission, the application shall be deemed to have been allowed to be proceeded with.

(2) A copy of every order under sub-section (1) shall be sent to the applicant and to the Commissioner of Customs having

jurisdiction.

(3) Where an application is allowed or deemed to have been allowed to be proceeded with under sub-section (1), the Settlement Commission shall, within seven days from the date of order under sub-section (1), call for a report along with the relevant records from the Commissioner of Customs having jurisdiction and the Commissioner shall furnish the report within a

Aswale 19/25

wp.1523.15. judgment.doc

period of thirty days of the receipt of communication from the Settlement Commission :

Provided that where the Commissioner does not furnish the report within the aforesaid period of thirty days, the

Settlement Commission shall proceed further in the matter without the report of the Commissioner.

(4) .............

(5) .............

(6) .............

(7) .............

(8) .............

(9) .............

(10) ..........."

(emphasis supplied)

13. Section 127C inter alia stipulates that on receipt of an

Application under section 127B, the Settlement Commission shall,

within seven days from the date of receipt of the Application, issue

notice to the Applicant to explain in writing as to why the

Application made by him should be allowed to be proceeded with.

After taking into consideration the explanation provided by the

Applicant, the Settlement Commission shall within a period of 14

days from the date of the notice, by an order, allow the Application

to be proceeded with or reject the Application. Reading the

provisions of sections 127B and 127C, it is clear that before the

Application is allowed to be proceeded with, the Settlement

Aswale 20/25

wp.1523.15. judgment.doc

Commission has to be satisfied that the mandatory requirements

as set out in section 127B are complied with. It is only once this

threshold is crossed, that the Settlement Application is allowed to

be proceeded with by the Settlement Commission.

14. In the facts of the present case, it is an admitted fact

that a notice was issued on 29th October, 2013 to the Petitioners as

contemplated under Section 127C(1) and the Petitioners were

called upon to give a written explanation whether the Settlement

Applications filed by them fulfill the criteria as laid down under

Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962 and also inform the

Commission whether the bar as set out under Section 127L of the

Customs Act, 1962 is applicable in their cases. This notice was

duly replied to by the Petitioners, by their letter dated 7th

November, 2013. By this detailed reply, the Petitioners not only

answered the discrepancies that were raised by the Settlement

Commission but a categorical statement was made in the said

reply that the Settlement Applications have not been made for the

interpretation of the classification of the goods under the Customs

Tariff Act, 1975. One of the discrepancies raised was with

reference to the deposit of duty demanded along with interest

Aswale 21/25

wp.1523.15. judgment.doc

thereon. Answering this discrepancy, the Petitioners stated that

they had not deposited the full duty along with interest as they

had already paid an amount of Rs.65,41,741/- as well as an

amount of Rs.50,00,000/- towards customs duty during

investigations, (making a total of Rs.1,15,41,741/-). This amount

was far in excess of the duty demanded in the SCN of

Rs.43,80,845/-. In view of the above, the Petitioners prayed that

the Settlement Applications filed by them be allowed to be

proceeded with.

After receiving this reply, the Settlement

Commission passed an order dated 12th November, 2013 under

which it was ordered that the Settlement Applications filed by the

Petitioners be allowed to be proceeded with. All these facts have

been taken into consideration by the Single Member of the

Settlement Commission (minority view), who has settled the case

of the Petitioners.

15. Considering these facts, we are clearly of the view that

the majority view of the Settlement Commission was in grave

error in coming to the conclusion that the Settlement Applications

filed by the Petitioners were liable for rejection on the ground of

non co-operation in the proceedings and non payment of any

Aswale 22/25

wp.1523.15. judgment.doc

admitted duty and interest as required under Section 127B. As

stated earlier, the Petitioners had explained that they had not

made any additional payment of duty because in the past they had

deposited the amount of duty which was far in excess of what was

demanded in the SCN. This explanation was accepted by the

Settlement Commission, and it was only thereafter that the case

was allowed to be proceeded with. We, therefore, think that it was

not correct on the part of the of the Settlement Commission (the

majority view) to reject the Settlement Applications of the

Petitioners on the ground of non payment of any admitted duty

and interest as required under Section 127B.

16. As far as the findings of the majority view that the

dispute in the present case related to classification, we equally

find this finding to be incorrect. Firstly, under Section 127B,

before the Settlement Applications are allowed to be proceeded

with, the Settlement Commission has to be satisfied that by virtue

of the Settlement Applications, the Petitioners are not seeking

interpretation of the classification of the goods under the Customs

Tariff Act, 1975. Such a declaration was categorically given by the

Petitioners in their reply dated 7th November, 2013 before the

Aswale 23/25

wp.1523.15. judgment.doc

Settlement Commission ordered that the Settlement Applications

of the Petitioners are allowed to be proceeded with. That apart,

the records of the proceedings before the Commission on 26th

March, 2014 (Exh. "E", page 148 of the paper book), also clearly

indicate that the Petitioners were not disputing the change in the

classification proposed by the Revenue in the SCN. It is

categorically stated that the Petitioners had accepted the

classification of the whole Barge with the fittings under Heading

8905 which attracts duty at 5%. This being the case, we are also

of the view that the Settlement Applications of the Petitioners

could not have been rejected on the ground that the same was only

a request to reclassify the fittings to the Barge/Pontoon, along

with Pontoon, and adjust the duty paid initially in 2007 against

the fitments classified under the respective CTH. In view of the

fact that the Settlement Commission itself had allowed the

Settlement Applications of the Petitioners to be proceeded with

under section 127C would only mean that at the threshold itself,

the Commission was satisfied that the Settlement Applications

filed by the Petitioners was not made for the interpretation of the

classification of the goods under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

This apart, it was also the case of the Petitioners that they are not

Aswale 24/25

wp.1523.15. judgment.doc

disputing any classification as proposed by the Revenue in the

SCN. In view of all this, we are clearly of the view that the

Settlement Applications filed by the Petitioners could not have

been rejected on this ground, as well.

17. In view of the foregoing discussions, we quash and set

aside the impugned order dated 31st October, 2014 (Exh. "R" to

the Petition) and the remand the matter back to the Settlement

Commission to decide the Settlement Applications filed by the

Petitioners on merits and in accordance with law and

uninfluenced by any views of the majority or minority, rendered

earlier. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we

leave the parties to bear their own costs.

       (B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.)                    (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)





    Aswale                                        25/25