Page 166 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

844 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

applications were not maintainable, as they had been filed at the
time when cigarettes stood notified under Section 123. The aforesaid
objection of the DRI has been rejected, by the Settlement Commis-
sion in the impugned final order dated 15th February, 2018, the
findings of the Settlement Commission read as under :
“(v) The Bench finds that DRI and jurisdictional Commissioner
has contested that cigarettes comes within the ambit of goods on
which Section 123 applies and on the date of filing application un-
der Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962, cigarettes were notified
goods under Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962, vide Notification
No. 103/2016-Cus. (N.T.), dated 25-7-2016, and hence the applicant
was not allowed to apply for Settlement. The Bench finds that all
the Bills of entry No. 4785466, dated 4-4-2016, 4308262, dated 19-2-
2016 and 4410560, dated 27-2-2016 were filed before 25-7-2016, the
date on which the cigarettes were notified under Section 123 of the
Customs Act, 1962, and the Bench does not agree with the conten-
tion of the Revenue that the applicant cannot apply for Settlement.
The Bench refers to the case law in case of DGFT v. Kanak Exports
[2015 (326) E.L.T. 26 (S.C.)] wherein Para 108 of the judgment states
that Notification cannot be given retrospective effect.”
(xii) Having thus the applications filed before us, the impugned final or-
der, of the Settlement Commission proceed to settle the case arising
out of the aforesaid show cause notice dated 7-4-2017 quantifying
the duty payable at ` 6,63,66,448/-, along with interest
` 46,45,025.05. Confiscation of the aforesaid cigarettes and alumini-
um scraps on the option to redeem the same at ` 10,000/-. Personal
penalties have also been imposed on the notified applicants before
the Settlement Commissions who are respondents in the present
proceedings.
(xiii) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 15th February, 2018 passed
by the Settlement Commission, the DRI has filed the present writ
petition.
3. Arguments canvassed by the counsel for petitioner :
Mr. Aditya Singla, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - DRI
contends that the Settlement Commission seriously erred in entertaining the ap-
plications before it by Respondent Nos. 2 to 11, as, in view of the fact that ciga-
rettes stood notified in Section 123 of the Act, the applications were not main-
tainable. Learned Counsel has also submitted that the reliance by the Settlement
Commission, on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in DGFT v. Kanak
Exports (supra) was also misdirected.
4. Arguments on behalf of the respondents :
Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate appearing for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4
canvassed two preliminary objections viz. Firstly, that the present writ petition is
not maintainable at the instance of DRI and could have been filed only by the
Commissioner, who was seized of the show cause notice issued to the petitioner
and secondly, that this Court did not possess the territorial jurisdiction to hear
the matter as the show cause notices have been issued by the Office of the DRI
and imports also taken place within the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana.
On merits Learned Counsel for respondents contends that the applications before
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  166