Page 163 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

2020 ] PRINCIPAL ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, DRI v. CUS.,C.E. & S.T. SETT.COMM. 841

Order of High Court - Interpretation thereof - Respondents plea that
Settlement Commission had followed order of Punjab and Haryana High
Court in deciding Settlement Application is misconceived inasmuch as High
Court never decided on maintainability of application - Well settled that an
order passed by a Court cannot be so interpreted as permitting a statutory au-
thority to act in violation of statute - Article 226 of Constitution of India. [para
5(g)]
Writ jurisdiction - Aggrieved party against Settlement order - DRI hav-
ing seized goods and issued show cause notice which is yet to be adjudicated,
is an aggrieved party against order of Settlement Commission - Writ jurisdic-
tion invocable - Article 226 of Constitution of India. [para 5(c)]
Writ jurisdiction - Territorial jurisdiction - Notwithstanding that
goods were imported in allocation under Punjab & Haryana High Court, since
Settlement order under challenge has been passed by quasi-judicial authori-
ty’s Delhi Principal Bench, Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction to en-
tertain writ petition - Article 226 of Constitution of India. [para 5(d)]
Petition allowed
CASES CITED
Director General of Foreign Trade v. Kanak Exports — 2015 (326) E.L.T. 26 (S.C.) — Referred .... [Para 3]
Kanchan Singh v. S.T.A.T. — AIR 1986 All 23 — Relied on ................................................................. [Para 5]
Rishikesh v. Salma Begum — (1995) 4 SCC 718 — Relied on ............................................................... [Para 5]
Shanta Bai Devarao v. CIT — (1962) 46 ITR 272 (Mys.) — Relied on .................................................. [Para 5]
Vishnu Security Services v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner —
2012 (129) DRJ 661 (DB) — Relied on ............................................................................................. [Para 5]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Aditya Singla, Sr. Standing Counsel with
Ms. Akanksha Mehta, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
S/Shri Saurabh Kapoor and Ashish Bansal,
Advocates, for the Respondent.
[Judgment per : D.N. Patel, C.J. (Oral)]. - This writ petition has been pre-
ferred challenging the order passed by Settlement Commission dated 15th Feb-
ruary, 2018 (Annexure P-1 to the memo of this writ petition). The impugned or-
der has been passed by the Settlement Commission under Section 127C of the
Customs Act, 1962.
2. Factual Matrix :
(i) These proceedings emanate from show cause notice dated 7th April,
2017, issued by the Additional Director General (ADG), Directorate
of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), New Delhi, to Respondent Nos. 2 to
11 herein.
(ii) Given the limited scope of controversy in the present writ petition,
it is not necessary to enter into detail in the facts of the case, suffice
it is to state at about 9:15 p.m. on 9-4-2016, Officers of the DRI inter-
cepted an Innova vehicle, one Ford Figo car and a truck, which ar-
rived at a godown located in Darshan Vihar, Burari, Delhi, and on
searching the said vehicles, 300 cartons of cigarettes, with 60 boxes
in each carton were found concealed behind Aluminium scrap. The
goods were found to be of Indonesian origin. The persons in the
aforesaid vehicles were unable to produce any document/evidence
of licit import of the aforesaid cigarettes. Under the reasonable pleas
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  163