UNION OF INDIA Vs. BIPIN H. BADANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent herein had imported certain raw material and availed the benefit of an exemption notification and did not pay the import duty as it was stated that it would be utilising the said raw material for manufacture of particular goods and then exporting the same back. However, instead of utilising the said raw material itself for the manufacture of the goods, the respondent sold the said raw material in the open market. When this fact came to the notice of the Department, the Department initiated proceedings against the respondent demanding the import duty, etc. At that stage, the respondent approached the Settlement Commission under Section 127B of the Customs Act. The Settlement Commission rejected the application of the respondent on the ground that it was not maintainable having regard to the aforesaid facts. The order of the Settlement Commission was challenged by the respondent by filing writ petition in the High Court.

(2.) It appears that there were many other similarly situated persons who had also filed their writ petitions as in their cases also, the Settlement Commission had rejected the applications. All these writ petitions are decided by the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court of Bombay [2006 (201) E.L.T. 529 (Bom.)]. The High Court has, after straightening certain aspects of law, remitted the cases back to the Settlement Commission for fresh decision in accordance with the legal position explained by the High Court.

(3.) Mr. Sanghi, learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue, informs that other writ petitioners whose petitions were decided along with the petition of the respondent have approached the Settlement Commission after the said judgment and their cases have since been decided. He, further informs that insofar as the present respondent is concerned, he has not approached the Settlement Commission thereafter.