Page 216 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

126 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

dated 12-4-2018. I have heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Learned
Authorised Representative for the Revenue and perused the case records. The
only ground to reject the Application of the Appellant by the Learned Commis-
sioner was that according to him, the earlier compounding Application filed by
the Appellant in the year 2006 which was rejected under the provisions of una-
mended Compounding of Offences Rules, 2005 attained finality and any subse-
quent change in law does not require any authority to review its own order and
re-open the matter which has attained finality.
4. The Board’s Circular dated 13-12-2005 (sic) by which the offences
under IPC were excluded from the purview of compounding relying upon which
the earlier application of the Appellant was rejected, was held as ultra virus to
the Customs Act, 1962 and rules made therein by the Hon’ble High Court of Ju-
dicature at Bombay vide order dated 25-10-2007 in Writ Petition No. 1884 of 2007
reported in 2008 (223) E.L.T. 19 (Bom.) and it is due to that reason another Circu-
lar of 2009 was issued. The purpose of compounding of offences against payment
of compounding amount is to prevent litigation and encourage early settlement
of dispute. In the guidelines issued vide Circular No. 15-10-2009 no prohibition
has been imposed against deciding the application for compounding of offences
which were earlier rejected on the technical ground being outside the purview,
nor there is any embargo that if the application has been rejected earlier the same
cannot be entertained again even if it falls within the purview of compounding of
offences as per the guidelines of 2009. A perusal of the said circular/guidelines
makes it clear that it is not applicable only qua those case which has been specifi-
cally excluded in that circular/guidelines from the purview of compounding. It
is not the case of the Appellant that the offence committed by him is no longer an
offence. His only plea is that now the offence under the Provision of IPC can also
be compounded as per the Circular of 2009. Admittedly, the earlier Application
of the Appellant was dismissed only due to embargo contained in the Circular
dated 2005. If the observation of the Learned Commissioner, that the Circular
dated 2009, did not mention about the offence committed before the issuance of
Circular dated 2009 is accepted then the Learned Commissioner is forgetting one
thing that the said circular also do not mention that it will be applicable only in
cases where the offence is committed after the passing of the aforesaid circular.
Going by the reasoning given by the Learned Commissioner, the very purpose of
compounding of offence i.e. to prevent litigation and encouraged earlier settle-
ment of dispute, will be defeated. The Application for compounding of offences
can be rejected only on the grounds mentioned in the guidelines issued by Circu-
lar dated 2009 and not otherwise. After going through the guidelines issued by
Circular dated 2009, I am of the view that the Application filed by the Appellant
for compounding falls within the four corners of the Circular dated 2009 and the
same deserve to be allowed.
5. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Learned Commis-
sioner is set aside and the Appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed with conse-
quential relief if any.
(Order pronounced in the open Court on 6-2-2020)

_______

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  216