Page 169 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

2020 ]ORKAYEM APPAREL LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT-EXPORT), CHENNAI 847

filed by the respondents before it on merits, even in the face of the
expressed statutory proscription contained in the third proviso to
serve Section 127B of the Customs Act. The reliance by Mr. Saurabh
Kapoor, Advocate on the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana is, therefore, misconceived, is accordingly rejected.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements,
we hereby quash and set aside the order dated 15th February, 2018 (Annexure P-
1 to the memo of this writ petition) passed by the Settlement Commission.
7. With these observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.
CM APPL. 16289/2018 (Stay)
8. In view of the final order passed in W.P. (C) No. 4143/2018, the ap-
plication stands disposed of as infructuous.
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 847 (Mad.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dr. Vineet Kothari and R. Suresh Kumar, JJ.
ORKAYEM APPAREL LTD.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT-EXPORT), CHENNAI
C.M.A. No. 690 of 2019, decided on 29-1-2020
1
EXIM - EPCG Scheme - Confiscation and penalty - Non-fulfilment of
export obligation - Two parallel proceedings against assessee on similar set of
facts - One with D.G.F.T. resulting in favourable order at hands of competent
authority under Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 - Facts
and circumstances of that case to be taken into account by Commissioner of
Customs - Direction to Commissioner of Customs to decide issue of imposi-
tion of fine and penalty de novo uninfluenced by the order passed by the Tri-
bunal, taking into account subsequent development in case - Liberty to as-
sessee to file fresh application for waiver/reduction of fine and penalty before
Commissioner for consideration in accordance with law - Sections 111 and 112
of Customs Act, 1962. [paras 4, 5]
Appeal disposed of
REPRESENTED BY : Shri B. Sathish Sundar, for the Appellant.
Shri M. Santhanaraman, Special Govt. Pleader (Tax-
es), for the Respondent.
[Judgment per : Vineet Kothari, J.]. - This appeal has been filed by the
assessee aggrieved by the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal dated 28-2-2017 [2017 (353) E.L.T. 249 (Tri.-Chennai)] uphold-
ing the imposition of penalty on the assessee. The short order passed by the
Learned Tribunal is quoted below for ready reference.
“Appellant says that 584 machines were imported and out of such import,
12 machines were found to have been installed and 318 machines were
________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from 2017 (353) E.L.T. 249 (Tribunal).
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  169