C.S. INDIA Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, DCEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this intra -court appeal, writ petitioners are calling in question the correctness and legality of the order dated 13 -4 -2004 passed in W.P. No. 5463/2004 whereunder the writ petition filed by petitioners calling in question the order passed by the Settlement Commission on 21 -8 -2003 - Annexure E as well as order dated 19 -9 -2003 - Annexure J came to be dismissed by confirming the order of Settlement Commission which had dismissed the application filed under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962 as not maintainable. Facts in brief which has led to the filing of this appeal can be crystallized as under:

(2.) WE have heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties namely Sri. Udaya Holla, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, learned panel counsel for the Revenue. Perused the case papers.

(3.) PER contra, Sri. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue has supported the orders passed by the Settlement Commission as well as the order of learned Single Judge by contending that 3rd proviso to Section 127B of the Act is attracted and same would clearly indicate that in cases of goods being notified under Section 123 are the subject matter of an application before the Settlement Commission, such application would be outside the purview of adjudication by Settlement Commission and as such, it came to be rightly held by the Settlement Commission that application filed by petitioner for settlement was not maintainable for being entertained on merits and as such, he seeks for affirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Settlement Commission. He would also contend that Miscellaneous Application came to be filed by the petitioner to recall the order dated 21 -8 -2013 passed by the Settlement Commission and same was also dismissed rightly by arriving at a conclusion that it has no power to review its own order and for setting aside these two orders, writ petition was filed, which also came to be dismissed on the ground that "goods" imported by petitioner were notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act. He would elaborate his submission by contending that conclusion arrived at by the Settlement Commission as regards the subject "goods" being covered under Section 123 of the Act is in consonance with material evidence available on record and as such, learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the writ appeal.