C.C. Vs. ROHAN ANIRUDHA SEOLEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of both sides, these writ petitions themselves are taken up for final disposal. In Writ Petition No. 2611 of 2012, the petitioner is the assessee and is the respondent in the other writ petition filed by the Revenue. As both the writ petitions are interconnected, they are taken up for disposal and a common order is passed. The brief facts arising out of the writ petition are as under:-

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue vehemently contended that the order passed by the Settlement Commission is not in accordance with law. The Settlement Commission had considered the irrelevant material and reduces the amount of duty payable by Rs. 14,64,690/-. It is also to be noted that the Revenue has not questioned the other findings of the Settlement Commission and questioned only the additional amount of Customs duty fixed by the Settlement Commission. It was further contended that the second respondent Settlement Commission has not considered properly the scope of the Notification 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 and further it was contended that the Settlement Commission is wrong in holding that it is a new car. There is no material for the Settlement Commission to come to the conclusion that it is a new car that the car was registered in London. Therefore, the order passed by the Settlement Commission is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside.

(3.) Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Settlement Commission has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and properly considered the relevant Notification and came to the conclusion that the assessee imported only a new car. Further it is also submitted that similar issues involved in another petitioner's case which came before the Settlement Commission, Bombay wherein, the Commission has allowed the case of the assessee/petitioner and aggrieved against such Settlement Commission Order, Revenue filed an appeal before the Bombay High Court and the Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Revenue. Further it was contended that the question involved here is the valuation of the car and also whether it is a new car or not? It is a question of fact and the Revenue cannot question the order of the Settlement Commission under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Union of India v. Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd., 2011 265 ELT 3, the learned counsel appearing for the assessee contended that the order passed by the Settlement Commission is in accordance with law and the same should be confirmed, consequently, the petitioner is also entitled to refund the duty. Hence, prays that the writ petition filed by the Revenue should be dismissed and the writ petition filed by the assessee should be allowed.