w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/s. Muthuraman Exports (Presently known as M/s. Perfect Stitch Garments P Ltd) v/s The Customs & Central Excise & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- D R GARMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101GJ2005PTC046010

Company & Directors' Information:- R. R. GARMENTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900MH1995PLC095544

Company & Directors' Information:- S G GARMENTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101WB2004PLC098193

Company & Directors' Information:- PERFECT CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900PN2012PLC143769

Company & Directors' Information:- K K P GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65921TZ1994PTC005334

Company & Directors' Information:- B K GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2001PTC109850

Company & Directors' Information:- N K GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2000PTC107093

Company & Directors' Information:- K. D. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18109WB2005PTC101896

Company & Directors' Information:- G AND A GARMENTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101PB1995PTC016121

Company & Directors' Information:- V H GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52322MH2008PTC181066

Company & Directors' Information:- M S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1991PTC046660

Company & Directors' Information:- S. S. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL1996PTC083315

Company & Directors' Information:- R K GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18100GJ1994PTC023240

Company & Directors' Information:- PERFECT STITCH GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17219TN2001PTC047739

Company & Directors' Information:- G. M. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18109DL2006PTC152683

Company & Directors' Information:- D AND D GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1975PTC007923

Company & Directors' Information:- J S GARMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900WB2009PTC135262

Company & Directors' Information:- K. B . GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18109WB2011PTC166954

Company & Directors' Information:- CENTRAL INDIA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC060997

Company & Directors' Information:- A K GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120DL2015PTC282847

Company & Directors' Information:- D P GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL2004PTC129479

Company & Directors' Information:- V S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC143084

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND P GARMENTS PVT LTD [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC143556

Company & Directors' Information:- V S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101HR2005PTC068124

Company & Directors' Information:- L. H. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17121KA2011PTC060761

Company & Directors' Information:- K R GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17111WB1998PTC087046

Company & Directors' Information:- T & A GARMENTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U52321TN1993PTC025318

Company & Directors' Information:- P. S. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18204DL2007PTC164238

Company & Directors' Information:- S. A. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17121DL2007PTC165007

Company & Directors' Information:- T S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51494DL1996PTC076668

Company & Directors' Information:- GARMENTS INDIA PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909GJ1979PTC003310

Company & Directors' Information:- I G S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL2004PTC128723

Company & Directors' Information:- M. P. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17291DL2007PTC164129

Company & Directors' Information:- K. S. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2007PTC164404

Company & Directors' Information:- B G GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2005PTC142488

Company & Directors' Information:- S P GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL2003PTC120709

Company & Directors' Information:- P N GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51311DL2004PTC127524

Company & Directors' Information:- J B GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101PB1996PTC017533

Company & Directors' Information:- V P GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18109DL2012PTC233293

Company & Directors' Information:- S T GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18109DL2015PTC277043

Company & Directors' Information:- P L GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120DL2013PTC248417

Company & Directors' Information:- M. K. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17291DL2007PTC164395

Company & Directors' Information:- R A GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP and Dissolved] CIN = U18101DL2003PTC123385

Company & Directors' Information:- C S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC134787

Company & Directors' Information:- B L GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC136912

Company & Directors' Information:- B D S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC137898

Company & Directors' Information:- T G GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC143392

Company & Directors' Information:- G P S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED. [Active] CIN = U18101DL2006PTC149330

Company & Directors' Information:- G P GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2007PTC161067

Company & Directors' Information:- PERFECT GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2008PTC175593

Company & Directors' Information:- I B GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2013PTC257044

Company & Directors' Information:- G P S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED. [Active] CIN = U74110DL2006PTC149330

Company & Directors' Information:- A G GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51300DL2013PTC257609

Company & Directors' Information:- V R V GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51311DL2008PTC182256

Company & Directors' Information:- M V GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899HR2005PTC141797

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND R GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17120HR2013PTC049037

Company & Directors' Information:- V K GARMENTS PRIVATE LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL1981PTC012410

Company & Directors' Information:- P M P GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC134811

Company & Directors' Information:- A S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17212CH1992PTC012350

Company & Directors' Information:- V R GARMENTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101CH1991PTC011345

Company & Directors' Information:- S B GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51311DL2005PTC141954

    W.P. No. 4103 of 2006

    Decided On, 30 July 2010

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

    For the Petitioner: Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate. For the Respondents: S. Udayakumar, Senior Standing Counsel.



Judgment Text

(PRAYER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the impugned order No.36/2005-Cus, dated 9.12.2005 passed by the first respondent Commission and quash the same as arbitrary and against law and further direct the first respondent Commission to take the settlement application filed by the petitioner on file and settle the issue at the rate of admitted duty liability of Rs.17,53,447/-.)





1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 9.12.2005 passed by the first respondent Settlement Commission and direct the first respondent to take settlement application on its file and settle the issue at the rate of admitted duty liability of Rs.17,53,447/-.


2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:


(a)The petitioner imported capital goods valued at Rs.80,33,368/- under EPCG licence issued on 17.8.2009 through seven bills of entry. The EPCG licence was issued by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Chennai for the import of capital goods worth Rs.1,17,21,770/- and the original obligation was Rs.5,86,08,850/- within six years as per the Customs notification No.29/97 dated 1.4.1997.


(b)The petitioner imported goods worth Rs.81 lakhs as he could export readymade garments worth Rs.2.80 crores. Petitioner executed bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.30 lakhs. Though the petitioner faced shortage of working capital and approached the bank and financiers, he could not arrange for the additional working capital.


(c)Petitioner started a private limited Company under the name and style of M/s. Perfect Stitch Garments Private Ltd in September, 2001 along with one P. Elango to take over the petitioner's business. Even after taking over, the business could not be continued to fulfil the export obligation. The EPCG licence period was also extended upto 19.8.2005. The petitioner resigned from the Board of Directors and allowed one Raj Guru to join in his place to run the Company. Petitioner continued as a holder of 50% share in the new company.


(d)The third respondent investigated the performance of the Company in September, 2004 and issued a show cause notice on 31.12.2004 to the petitioner in his capacity as proprietor of M/s. Muthuraman Exports and M/s. Perfect Stitch Garments Private Limited. The show cause notice alleged violation of the conditions of EPCG licence for having deployed one machine in the premises of M/s. Muthuraman Exports for carrying out some job work for some other exporters. The said show cause notice proposed denial of benefit to zero duty exemption availed to the imported capital goods valued at Rs.80,34,368/- and proposed to recover customs duty amount of Rs.29,32,363/-. The amount of Rs.30 lakhs furnished by way of bank guarantee was sought to be adjusted against the said duty liability interest and other adjudication proceedings. The notice further proposed to confiscate the imported capital goods valued at Rs.51,69,628/- and the embroidery machine with accessories valued at Rs.28,27,200/-. There was a proposal to impose penalty along with M/s. Perfect Stitch Garments Private Limited.


(d)According to the petitioner, he could not fulfil the export obligation and he desired for settling the matter with the first respondent under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962, and accordingly filed an application by admitting the liability of Rs.8,11,471/- as against the customs duty demanded to the tune of Rs.29,32,362/- through the show cause notice issued by the third respondent. The petitioner stated the details about how the said Rs.8,11,471/- was arrived at.


(e)The first respondent fixed the hearing of the settlement application on 10.5.2005. Petitioners consultant appeared and argued the matter. The first respondent directed the petitioner's consultant to file an application stating the amount of additional duty liability accepted and detailed submission was filed before the first respondent on 16.5.2005 with prayer that the additional duty liability may be settled at Rs.17,53,447/- and also stated that due to calculation error correct amount was not stated in the settlement application. The representative of the petitioner also claimed to have cited the judgment rendered by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal for its consideration. The first respondent fixed the date of personal hearing for admission of the case on 1.12.2005.


(f)According to the petitioner, during the hearing the third respondent also admitted that there is an error in calculation of the amount mentioned in the show cause notice and the actual amount to be demanded is Rs.25,02,435/- and not Rs.29,32,363/-. The said amount was also disputed by the petitioner and reiterated his contention that the liability would be only Rs.17,11,165 and requested the first respondent to settle the issue by fixing the liability at Rs.17,11,165/-. The same having been rejected and the first respondent permitted the revenue to adjudicate the matter in terms of section 127C(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, stating that there is want of full and true disclosure, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the above said prayer.


3. The respondents have filed counter affidavit by stating that based on the investigation conducted, the statements recorded and the documents produced, the show cause notice was issued on 31.12.2004 under section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why,


(i)the benefit of zero duty exemption extended on the capital goods valued at Rs.80,34,368/-, imported by them under EPCG Licence No.04500575 dated 17.8.99 should not be denied as they failed to fulfill the condition of import of capital goods worth minimum Rs.1 crore within the stipulated period;


(ii)duty of Rs.29,32,363/- (as per annexure to SCN) should not be demanded together with interest @ 15% p.a. in terms of the bonds executed by them and as per the conditions of Notification No.29/97-Cus, dated 01.04.97 as amended.


(iii) an amount of Rs.30 lakhs recovered by enforcing the bank guarantees furnished by M/s.Muthuraman Exports should not be adjusted towards the duty/interest and other adjudication liabilities.


(iv)The seized capital goods valued at Rs.51,69,628/- (CIF) from the premises of M/s.Muthuraman Exports (M/s.Perfect Stitch Garments PVT. Ltd.) should not be confiscated under section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962.


(v)The seized "Barudan Multi head embroidery machine with all accessories" valued at Rs.28,27,200/- (CIF) which were diverted and utilized at the premises of M/s.MNR Exports, violating the conditions of EPCG scheme should not be confiscated under section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962.


(vi)The machinery (two sets of end cutter machine), for which Shri A.Muthuraman and Shri P.Elango could to offer explanation for the whereabouts of the same valued at Rs.37540/- (CIF) should not be held liable for confiscation under section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962.


(vii) Penalty should not be imposed on Shri.A.Muthuraman, sole Proprietor of Muthuraman Exports and M/s.Perfect Stitch Garments Pvt.Ltd., which had taken over the assets and liabilities of M/s.Muthuraman Exports, under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 for rendering the said imported goods liable for confiscation.


The copies of documents referred to and relied upon in the show cause were appended to the show cause notice as Annexures and the petitioner was granted 30 days time from the date of receipt of the notice to submit their reply. Petitioner, instead of giving reply to the show cause notice submitted an application before the first respondent which was taken up for admission on 18.2.2005 and the revenue re-worked the duty liability as Rs.25,02,435/- as against the earlier determination of Rs.29,32,363/-. Petitioner had accepted the additional duty liability during the hearing on 10.5.2005 as Rs.21,54,465/-. However, subsequently he refused the said amount by submitting a representation dated 1.12.2005. The Judgment of the Tribunal cited by the representative of the petitioner was considered and a finding was given that there was no full and true disclosure and consequently rejected the application for settlement with direction to come for adjudication. There is no illegality in the said order as the petitioner is not willing to pay the said revised amount.


4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in cases where there is discrepancy in the amount payable, the Settlement Commission can adjudicate the matter and arrive at a correct figure.


5. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no full and true disclosure in the settlement application filed by the petitioner and unless and until there is full and true disclosure, the settlement application before the Commission is not maintainable as per the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, which was rendered considering the rejection of settlement claim under section 245D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.


6.I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents.


7. The point for consideration in this writ petition is whether the application filed for settlement without full and true disclosure on the part of the petitioner is entertainable and the first respondent has got any power of adjudication ?


8. The petitioner has filed application for settlement before the first respondent in terms of Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962. The said application was processed in terms of Section 127C and the first respondent came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not made full and true disclosure. The said order was passed under Section 127B(1).


9. Whether a person approaching the Settlement Commission is bound to make full and true disclosure in the settlement application is the issue to be decided at the first instance.


10. The petitioner has applied for settlement under Section 127-B of the Customs Act, 1962 and the relevant portion of the said section reads as follows:


"127-B.Application for settlement of cases.- (1) Any importer, exporter or any other person (hereinafter referred to as the applicant in this Chapter) may, in respect of a case, relating to him make an application, before adjudication to the Settlement Commission to have the case settled, in such form and in such manner as may be specified by rules, and containing a full and true disclosure of his duty liability which has not been disclosed before the proper officer, the manner in which such liability has been incurred, the additional amount of customs duty accepted to be payable by him and such other particulars as may be specified by rules including the particulars of such dutiable goods in respect of which he admits short levy on account of misclassification, under-valuation or inapplicability of exemption notification or otherwise and such application shall be disposed of in the manner hereinafter provided."


From the reading of the above referred statutory provision it is evident that full and true disclosure of duty liability, which has not been disclosed before the Settlement Commission, is a mandatory requirement to submit an application for settlement, apart from satisfying other requirements.


11. The petitioner's disclosure of an amount of Rs.8,11,471/- is without any basis. Merely because the revenue has reduced the amount to Rs.25,02,435/- as against the amount of Rs.29,32,363/- in the show cause notice the petitioner cannot contend that he cannot be blamed for not disclosing the correct amount. Even after arriving at a revised amount payable as Rs.25,02,435/-, petitioner is not willing to pay the amount, though he has not disclosed the correct amount in the settlement application due to any reason.


12. In the decision reported in 2010 (253) E.L.T. 722 (Mad) (Optigrab International v. Government of India) the Division Bench of this Court considered the very same provision and held that full and true disclosure is a mandatory requirement. In paragraph 26 it is held thus,


"26. Chapter XIV A of the Customs Act, being an exemption to the normal procedure contemplated under the Act and occurring in a fiscal statute, has to be necessarily construed strictly, in our considered view, the scope of the proceedings cannot be unduly enlarged. In cases where there was no deliberate or intended desire on the part of importer to evade or avoid payment of customs duty, to provide immunity and protection of such class of people, Legislature has incorporated Chapter XIV A. As a matter of fact, Chapter XIV A was introduced by parliament by relying on similar provisions under the Income Tax Act with a view to introduce remedial measure by way of Settlement Commission, such provision cannot be interpreted to enlarge the scope of settlement where there was deliberate evasion of duty. Cases of mis-declaration and improper availing of benefits entail in confiscation, penal proceedings and others. Settlement Applications under Section 127-B are filed admitting the duty liability. The Settlement Commission has power to award interest and penalty as per decision Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. A. Mahesh Raj, 2006 (195) E.L.T. 261, 265 (Kar). Also it has jurisdiction to reject the application at the preliminary stage as per decision Union of India v. Hoganas India Ltd., 2006 (199) E.L.T. 8 at page 31, 32 (Bombay). Allowing of settlement applications means there may not be any penal proceedings and confiscation, in such circumstances, when the Applicant seeks to avail benefit of settlement, the provisions of Section 127-A and 127-B are to be strictly construed. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the provisions are to be liberally construed."


13. The Settlement Commission has no power to decide questions on assessment or not under the Central Excise Act, 1944, was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2010 (254) E.L.T. 392 (Mad) (Australian Foods Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II), wherein I was also a party. In the said case settlement under section 32-E of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which is pari materia to Section 127-B of the Customs Act, 1962, was the issue. In para 20 it is held thus,


"20......... we have no hesitation to hold that the second respondent/Commission has proceeded to decide a question without there being any jurisdiction conferred on it and thus, the order passed by the second respondent/Commission is bad in law. ..........."


14. In the decision reported in 2005 (183) ELT 134 (Kashish Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India), a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court considered similar issue and held that rejection order passed by the Settlement Commission under Section 32F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, cannot be interfered with by the High Court in a proceeding under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Same was the view taken by the Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the decision reported in 2007 (207) ELT 40 (Light Engg. Corporation v. Union of India).


15. In 2008 (229) ELT 502 (New Bharat Rice Mill v. Union of India), a Division Bench of the same High Court (Punjab & Haryana) considered similar order passed by the Settlement Commission under Section 127C of the Customs Act, 1962, and upheld the same. In para 4 it is held thus,


"4............ The statute has bestowed Settlement Commission with discretionary powers and if such powers have been exercised diligently and reasonably, the same cannot be faulted with. Each order of settlement is based on the facts and circumstances of each case which may be peculiar to itself and, therefore, cannot be made the basis for terming an order discriminatory unless violative of the Statute."


16. In an income tax matter similar issue arose before this Court in 2009 (310) ITR 0010 : (2008) 1 MLJ 214 (Commissioner of Income-tax v. Income-tax Settlement Commission) and a Division Bench of this Court, wherein I was also a party, upheld the order of the Settlement Commission, which was passed under Section 245D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that voluntary disclosure made by the assessee was not in terms of section 245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and allowed the assessee to face the normal channels of assessment/appeals, etc. In the said judgment, the Division Bench relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2005) 2 SCC 751: (2005) 3 MLJ 48 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalpaiguri v. Om Prakash Mittal) wherein the Supreme Court in paragraphs 16 to 18 held thus,


"16. The foundation for settlement is an application which the assessee can file at any stage of a case relating to him in such form and in such manner as is prescribed. The statutory mandate is that the application shall contain ?full and true disclosure? of the income which has not been disclosed before the assessing officer, the manner in which such income has been derived. The fundamental requirement of the application under Section 245-C is that full and true disclosure of the income has to be made, along with the manner in which such income was derived. On receipt of the application, the Commission calls for report from the Commissioner and on the basis of the material contained in the report and having regard to the nature and circumstances of the case or complexity of the investigation involved therein, it can either reject the application or allow the application to be proceeded with as provided in Section 245-D(1).


17. It has to be noted that the Commission exercises power in respect of income which was not disclosed before the authorities in any proceeding, but is disclosed in the petition under Section 245-C. It is not that any amount of undisclosed income can be brought to the notice of the Commission in the said petition. The Commission exercises jurisdiction if the additional amount of tax on such undisclosed income is more than a particular figure (which at different points of time exceeded rupees fifty thousand or rupees one hundred thousand, as the case may be). The assessee must have in addition furnished the return of income which he is or was required to furnish under any of the provisions of the Act. In essence the requirement is that there must be an income disclosed in a return furnished and undisclosed income disclosed to the Commission by a petition under Section 245-C.


18. There is a purpose why the legislature has prescribed the condition relating to declaration of the order void when it is obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts.

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

It cannot be said that there has been a true and fair declaration of income which is the prerequisite for settlement by the Commission. If an order is obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts, it cannot be said that there was true and fair disclosure. It was noted here that unlike Section 139 of the Act which provides for filing of revised return, there is no provision for revision of an application made in terms of Section 245-C. That shows clear legislative intent that the applicant for settlement has to make a true and fair declaration from the threshold. It is on the basis of the application received that the Commission calls for report to decide whether the application is to be rejected or permitted to be continued. The declaration contemplated in Section 245-C is in the nature of voluntary disclosure of concealed income, but as noted above it must be true and fair disclosure. Voluntary disclosure and making a full and true disclosure of the income are necessary preconditions for invoking the Commission?s jurisdiction."(Emphasis Supplied) 17. Same is the view taken by the Division Bench in the decision reported in 2008 (306) ITR 0403 (Dr. C.M.K. Reddy v. Settlement Commission (IT/WT)) under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 18. Applying the above cited judgments to the facts of this case and as the petitioner is not willing to pay the amount arrived at by the Settlement Commission and disputing the same even though he has not made full and true disclosure in the settlement application, the first respondent cannot be directed by this Court to accept the settlement or go into the claim, which is in dispute. In the impugned order itself it is stated that the Revenue should take up the adjudication as if no application has been filed for settlement. There is no perversity in the said order warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed. The Revenue is directed to finalise the adjudication proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

27-02-2020 Perfect Synergy Advisory Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sagar Infra Rail International Limited & Others High Court of Delhi
11-02-2020 Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Goa Versus M/s. Adani Exports Ltd. Supreme Court of India
13-01-2020 Union of India rep. By its Enforcement Officer Enforcement Directorate Chennai Versus M/s. Raiments & Garments International, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2020 The General Manager, Aleppy Parcel Service, Alappuzha Versus Anil Kumar V., Managing Partner, Wetex Garments, Poovattuparamba, Kozhikode Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
22-11-2019 The Management Scotts Garments Limited, Trippur Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-10-2019 M/s. PJS Knit Garments, Rep.by its Partner, P. Sugansaran & Another Versus The Authorised Officer, Bank of Baroda, Tirupur Main Branch, Tirupur High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-08-2019 M/s. Indo Skins Garments Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, N. Thiagarajan, Chennai Versus The Presiding Officer, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-07-2019 The Officer In Charge, Sub-Regional Provident Fund Office & Another Versus M/s Godavari Garments Limited Supreme Court of India
04-07-2019 M/s. Perfect Engineering Associates Pvt. Ltd., Chennai Versus The Joint Commissioner (CT), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-04-2019 The District Collector, Kanchipuram Versus M/s. Gupta Garments, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory Anil Gupta & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-04-2019 M/s. Ginni Garments & Another Versus M/s. Sethi Garments & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
04-04-2019 Ginni Garments and Others V/S Sethi Garments and Others. In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
13-03-2019 The Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Southern Railway, Salem Division & Others Versus M/s. Premier Garments Processing, Rep. by its Proprietor Ibrahim Sha, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-12-2018 Batra Garments Pvt. Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-12-2018 Goodluck Garments Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Cus., Surat-II High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
24-09-2018 M/s. Premier Garments Processing, Rep. by its Proprietor, Ibrahim Sha, Chennai Versus The Divisional Railway Manager, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-08-2018 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Versus M/s. Green Fire Exports Supreme Court of India
10-08-2018 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Versus M/s. Green Fire Exports Supreme Court of India
24-07-2018 Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., (Now ECGC Limited), Chennai & Another Versus Zoro Garments Private Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director, N.F. Mogrella High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-07-2018 M/s. Rasathe Garments, Rep by its Partner, Virudhunagar Versus The Commercial Tax Officer-I, Virudhunagar High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-07-2018 Bord for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (B.I.F.R.) Versus Coromandel Garments Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-06-2018 Hemant B. Prasad & Another Versus M/s. Perfect Solutions, rep. by the Prop. Praful S. Shah, Hyderabad In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
04-04-2018 M/s. Sri Rengas Avitta Garments, Represented by its Partner, R. Rajaram & Another Versus R. Indira High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-04-2018 Kandukuri Garments Versus Inspector of Legal Metrology High Court of Karnataka
14-03-2018 Perfect Mechanical Industries Versus Delhi Jal Board, Govt. of NCT of Delhi High Court of Delhi
02-01-2018 A. Velumurugan Versus M/s. Sree Shiva Sakthi Garments, Represented by its Partner Venkatachalam, Tiruppur High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-10-2017 Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Cochin V/S Cannanore Handloom Exports Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
06-09-2017 Pond's Exports Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
09-08-2017 Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III V/S Perfect Engine Components Pvt. Ltd. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
26-07-2017 Creative Garments Pvt. Ltd V/S C.C.E. & S.T. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
19-06-2017 Shri Ranganatha Exports V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Zone-I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
15-06-2017 Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry Versus Vale Exports (P) Ltd. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
15-06-2017 Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry V/S Vale Exports (P) Ltd. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
25-05-2017 Mahalaxmi Exports and Others V/S Commissioner of Central Excise - Ahmedabad-I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
19-05-2017 Sopariwala Exports Pvt. Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs-Anand Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
28-02-2017 Mahalaxmi Exports and Others V/S Commissioner of Central Excise - Ahmedabad-I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
10-02-2017 The Management of Foundation Garments Pvt. Ltd. Represented by its Managing Director ?Divine Grace? Versus Government of Tamil Nadu Labour & Employment (A1) Department, Represented by its Principal Secretary High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-02-2017 Perfect Auto Spares and Others V/S CC-N. Delhi-I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
09-02-2017 M/s. Perfect Facilities Management Pvt. Ltd. Versus Presiding Officer & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
07-02-2017 M/s. Perfect Prints Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-02-2017 Poonam Perfect and Others V/S Commissioner of Central Excise Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
19-01-2017 R.K. Rajkumar Proprietor M/s. Koghima Garments Versus The Registrar Debts Recovery Tribunal - III Spencer Towers Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-01-2017 Kitex Garments Ltd., represented by its Managing Director-Sabu M. Jacob Versus State of Kerala, represented by Principal Secretary To Government, Taxes (H) Department & Another High Court of Kerala
02-01-2017 Sonal Garments V/S Commr. of Cus., Seaport (Import), Chennai Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
04-11-2016 M/s. Perfect Boxes Pvt. Ltd. & Anothers Versus C.C.E.& S.T., Indore Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
15-09-2016 M/s. Rasathe Garments Versus The Commercial Tax Officer-I (FAC) Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
02-09-2016 Carol Garments & Another Versus The Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-08-2016 Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad Versus M/s. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Limited Supreme Court of India
29-07-2016 M/s. Perfect( Furniture Bazar) Versus Sanjib Mitra West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
21-06-2016 M/s. Oxygen the Digital Shop, Pulimoottil Arcade, Kottayam & Another Versus Namadevan.L., Anna Garments & Others Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
12-04-2016 The Chairman, Central Board Of Excise & Customs, New Delhi & Another Versus M/s. Rajesh Exports Limited, Represented by its Chairman Rajesh Mehta, Bangaluru High Court of Karnataka
29-02-2016 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Perfect Colourants & Plastics Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
12-02-2016 M/s. Anjal Garments Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-11-2015 Perfect Borng Pvt. Ltd. Versus Employees Provident Fund Organization High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
07-09-2015 Anmol Chitlangia Versus Perfect Vision Lasik Laser Centre & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-08-2015 Provident Fund Commissioner Versus M/s. Bena Garments High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-08-2015 State of Madhya Pradesh & Others Versus M/s. Perfect Sales, Vineet Market, Jayendraganj, Lashker, Gwalior High Court of Madhya Pradesh
05-06-2015 M/s. Triven Garments Ltd., represented by its Managing Director & Others Versus State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-03-2015 Perfect Circle India Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, 5(2), Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai
18-03-2015 M/s. Rajesh Exports Limited, Rep. By its Chairman Rajesh Mehta Versus Chairman, Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi & Another High Court of Karnataka
27-02-2015 SCM Garments (P.) Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-III, Coimbatore Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai
09-01-2015 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Versus M/s. Perfect Prints Through its Sole Proprietor Smt. Veena Gupta & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-12-2014 Nelly Garments Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
26-11-2014 M/s. Perfect Polybaags Private Ltd. & Others Versus Canara Bank High Court of Karnataka
26-11-2014 Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-II Versus Ankit Garments Manufacturing Co. High Court of Delhi
19-11-2014 M/s. Teknomin Aqua Exports (India) Ltd., Ankalapatur Village, Chillakur Mandal, Nellore District Versus The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, C.R Buildings, Kannavarithota, Guntur In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
07-11-2014 KMC Textiles & Garments, rep.by its Proprietor, Shaj Mohammed Versus The Chief Manager & Authorized Officer, Indian Bank, Trichy Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
24-10-2014 Board of Investment of Sri Lanka Versus Million Garments (PVT) Ltd. Supreme Court of Sri Lanka
28-08-2014 Sakthi Fashions, Manufacturers & Exporters of Fabrics and Garments, Represented by its Proprietrix Versus Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd, Represented by its General Manager Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chennai
03-07-2014 Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Ludhiana Versus Nahar Exports Ltd. High Court of Punjab and Haryana
11-06-2014 National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus M/s. Ess Ell Garments Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh
01-05-2014 Sri Priyaluckshmi Garments Represented by Mrs. G. Mahalakshmi, Partner & Others Versus The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-04-2014 Vijay Karlekar, Proprietor, M/s. New Keerthi Garments & Another Versus Karnataka State Financial Corporation & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-04-2014 In Re Jagadamba Garments Marketing Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
06-03-2014 Perfect Ply-N-Wood, Through Its Proprietor Versus Paresh C. Parekh Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai
26-02-2014 M/s. Lakshya Garments through its Proprietor Versus National Insurance Company Limited National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-02-2014 M/s. Perfect Technologies Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Siliguri Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Regional Bench Kolkata
11-02-2014 Kikani Exports Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore & Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
29-01-2014 M/s. Perfect Enviro Control Systems Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vapi Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
25-09-2013 The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Versus M/s. Anjali Silks & Garments High Court of Karnataka
29-07-2013 M/s. Perfect Stone Pvt. Ltd. rep. by its authorized Representative S. Ramachandran Versus M/s. JK Coal Corporation & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-06-2013 M/s. Perfect Industries, rep. by its Partner Mrs. R. Geetha, Chennai Versus The Chief Manager, State Bank of India High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-04-2013 M/s. Viking Garments, (A Partnership Firm) Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-04-2013 A.J. Ramadoss Versus S. Padmavathy and N. Sankar(spouse) Om Siva Sakthi Garments National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-11-2012 CC&CE, Guntur Versus M/s. Kandukuri Garments (P) Ltd. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
12-10-2012 M/s. C.S. Garments & Another Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tirupur High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-10-2012 Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Ludhiana Versus Paliwal Exports High Court of Punjab and Haryana
24-08-2012 The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Guntur Versus M/s. Micafab Exports (P) Ltd. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
06-08-2012 Commissioner of Income Tax Versus First Garments Manufacturing Co. India (P) Ltd High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-07-2012 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Versus M/s. Perfect Prints, Through its Sole Proprietor National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-06-2012 M/s. Amex Garments Pvt. Ltd. Ekkattuthangal, Guindy, Rep. by Director Versus The Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-04-2012 M/s. Kitex Garments Ltd. Versus CC, Cochin Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
10-01-2012 M/s. Perfect Computer Network & Another Versus M/s. I.T. World High Court of Punjab and Haryana
23-12-2011 M/S. Shyam Garments & Others Versus State Bank Of India High Court of Delhi
15-11-2011 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus M/s. Perfect Prints Through its Sole Proprietor Smt. Veena Gupta National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-11-2011 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Koregaon Branch Soham Bldg., Rahimatpur Road, Koregaon, Dist. Versus M/s. Prinita Garments Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai
03-11-2011 Levi Strauss & Company Versus Nizami Garments High Court of Delhi
21-10-2011 M/s. Perfect Knitters Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise Hyderabad Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
25-07-2011 Commissioner of Customs Versus Kitex Garments High Court of Kerala
14-07-2011 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Somesh Readymade Garments National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC