Page 167 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

2020 ] PRINCIPAL ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, DRI v. CUS.,C.E. & S.T. SETT.COMM. 845

the Settlement Commission had been filed as per the liberty granted by the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana and in view thereof, the applications should not
have been rejected on the ground of maintainability. Besides, Learned Counsel
submits that the finding of the Settlement Commission, that, as cigarettes were
not notified under Section 123 on the date of the importation by his clients, the
applications filed, by them before the Settlement Commission were maintainable.
5. Reasons :
(a) Having heard the counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case, it appears that looking to the provisions
of Section 127B especially, third proviso thereof, no application
could have been made by the respondent in relation to the goods to
which Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 applies. In the facts of
the present case, show cause notice was issued to this respondent
on 7th April, 2017 (Annexure P-11 to the memo of this writ peti-
tion). The goods involved in this case is cigarettes which is a noti-
fied item. The Central Government notification is dated 25th July,
2016 with Notification No. 103/2016-Cus. (N.T.).
(b) Having heard the Learned Counsel for respondents and applied our
mind to the record, we are unable to extend to any of the submis-
sions advanced by Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate on behalf of re-
spondents and entirely concur with Mr. Aditya Singla, Advocate in
his submission that the Settlement Commission had no jurisdiction
to entertain the respondents’ applications.
(c) We find that two preliminary objections advanced by Mr. Saurabh
Kapoor, Advocate on behalf of the respondents to be totally bereft
of substance. The show cause notices, in the present case were is-
sued by the DRI. Seizure of the goods had also been effected by the
DRI. The show cause notices were yet to be adjudicated. It cannot,
therefore, be said that the DRI “aggrieved party” ineligible to main-
tain a writ petition against the order of the Settlement Commission.
(d) Equally, we find no substance in the objection regarding territorial
jurisdiction as advanced by Learned Counsel for the respondents. A
Division Bench of this Court has in Vishnu Security Services v. Re-
gional Provident Fund Commissioner - (2012) 129 DRJ 661 (DB) has al-
ready held that, where the order of quasi-judicial authority, which
is being challenged, has been passed within the territorial jurisdic-
tion of this Court, this Court would have jurisdiction to entertain
the matter. Admittedly, the impugned order was passed by the
Principal Bench of Settlement Commission located at New Delhi. As
such, we reject the objection of territorial jurisdiction, as raised by
Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, appearing on behalf of the respondents. The
third proviso to Section 127B of the Customs Act states that “No
application in this Section shall be made in relation to goods to which
Section 123 applies”. As such, maintainability of the application vis-
a-vis notification of the goods under Section 123 of the Act, would
have to be assessed on the basis of goods were so notified on the date
when the application was made, and not on the date when the goods were
imported. Dealing with the expression “made” as implied in Section
58(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which refers to renewal of a
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  167