M/S Horizon Ferro Alloys Pvt Ltd v. Customs, Excise And Service Tax Settlement Commission And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 19564 of 2017 Decided on : 30.08.2017 M/s Horizon Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

. . . Petitioner

Versus

Customs, Excise and Service Tax Settlement Commission and another . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL PRESENT: Mr. Sanjay Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Arjun Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking reading down the scope of 3rd proviso of Section 127B relating to the applications for settlement of cases under the Customs Act, 1962 (in short 'the Act') inter alia on the vice of unreasonableness, arbitrariness and constitutionality to the extent it reads as under:- "Provided also that no application under this subsection shall be made in relation to which section 123 applies or... ."

Besides this a prayer for direction to respondent No.1 has also been made to decide on merits the entire case arising out of Settlement Application bearing SA(E) No.5401/2017, without being influenced by the inclusion of cigarettes as notified goods under Section 123 of the Act vide notification No.103/2016-Customs (N.T.) dated 25.07.2016, which is subsequent not only to the import of goods by filling of the Bills of Entry Jawala Ram 2017.09.04 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No. 19564 of 2017 - 2 - and seizure thereof, but also after the order dated 21.06.2016 passed by this Court.

2.

At the outset, on a query being put to the learned counsel for the petitioner, whether any adverse order has been passed against the petitioner, he candidly admitted that it was not such. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that an application has been filed before the Settlement Commission, which is still pending. In such circumstances, he prays for withdrawal of the present writ petition, as the same is premature at this stage. However, liberty was sought to approach this Court again, as and when, any adverse order is passed against the petitioner. 3.

Dismissed as withdrawn. It shall, however, be open to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedies as may be available to it, in accordance with law.

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (AMIT RAWAL) August 30, 2017 JUDGE J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No Jawala Ram 2017.09.04 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh