Customs / Settlement Commission · F2J-C-2848
Ridhi Sidhi Overseas v. Principal Commissioner of Customs & Ors.
VALIDATED · ACTUAL COURT DOCUMENTSource transparency: The local PDF is an actual court document retained from the complete public source. The official court portal is recorded separately. Verify the official record and subsequent history before reliance.
Holding (ratio)
Limitation bars the statutory remedy rather than the underlying right. In a taxpayer-invoked settlement, the Commission could appropriate a voluntary deposit supported by the applicant's admission without thereby raising a new time-barred section 28 demand.
Operative order (extract)
56. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition, along with the pending application, is dismissed.
Scope limits
The holding is confined to the issues actually decided in the retained judgment; no view is attributed to the court on questions expressly left open or remanded.
Sources and completeness
- PDF status
- Complete searchable public court copy, retained unchanged
- PDF origin
- Downloaded unchanged from the complete public court-copy source
- PDF pages
- 20
- Extracted words
- 5,366
- PDF SHA-256
6d680fc1f1ef0229272c99ff8a4b7b9428b4d8dc20a7d0cbecf3fe59caf5f354
Complete searchable judgment text
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 07.09.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 16.09.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 16.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010986722018
+ W.P.(C) 3391/2018 and CM APPL. 13405/2018
RIDHI SIDHI OVERSEAS .....Petitioner
Through: Dr. Prabhat Kumar, Mr. Karan
Kanwal, Mr. Pralabh Mathur,
Advs.
versus
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Gibran Naushad, SSC, Mr.
Suraj Shekhar Singh, Mr.
Hasan Haider and Mr. Anish
Mishra, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
JUDGMENT
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:
1. Through the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks quashing
of Final Order No. F.-3276 to 3278/CUS/2018-SC(PB) dated
26.02.2018 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by
the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Settlement Commission,
Principal Bench, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Settlement
Commission”].
2. By the Impugned Order, the Settlement Commission disposed
of three settlement applications, including the application filed by the
Petitioner and the applications filed by Shri Sumit Khandelwal and
Shri Manoj Dugar, Directors of M/s Dugar Overseas Pvt. Ltd. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
W.P.(C) 3391/2018
Signing Date:16.09.2026 Page 1 of 20
16:48:30
present Writ Petition, however, has been instituted only by the
Petitioner and the challenge is confined to the Impugned Order insofar
as it concerns the Petitioner.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
3. In order to appreciate the controversy arising in the present
Petition, it would be appropriate to notice the relevant facts as
recorded by the Settlement Commission. The correctness of the
factual narration, insofar as it is material to the present controversy,
has not been shown to be disputed before this Court.
4. The case arose out of an investigation conducted by the
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai Zonal Unit [hereinafter
referred to as “DRI”] into alleged under-invoicing and consequent
misdeclaration of the transaction value and Retail Sale Price
[hereinafter referred to as “RSP”] of confectionery items imported
from M/s Seville Products Ltd., Dubai. The intelligence developed by
the DRI indicated that importers of confectionery items, including
wafers, cookies and toffees, were allegedly declaring values lower
than the actual values of the goods with a view to evading Customs
duty. The differential amount corresponding to the suppressed value
was allegedly being remitted to the overseas suppliers through non-
banking channels.
5. The Petitioner, a proprietary concern of Shri Navin Singh, was
one of the importers covered by the investigation. During the period
from 2008-09 to 2010-11, the Petitioner imported 21 consignments of
assorted confectionery items from M/s Seville Products Ltd. through
different ports, including Nhava Sheva, ICD Tughlakabad and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
W.P.(C) 3391/2018
Signing Date:16.09.2026 Page 2 of 20
16:48:30
Chennai.
6. Pursuant to the investigation, the premises of Shri Prakash
Menon, stated to be the Indian representative of M/s Seville Products
Ltd., Mumbai, and the premises of the Petitioner were searched on
18.10.2013 and 10.02.2014, respectively. During the search, invoices
raised by M/s Seville Products Ltd. upon the Petitioner and Statements
of Account maintained by the overseas supplier in respect of the
Petitioner were recovered. The values reflected in the said documents
were higher than the values declared before the Customs authorities at
the time of clearance of the goods.
7. During investigation, statements of Shri Navin Singh, proprietor
of the Petitioner-firm, were recorded on 11.02.2014 and 26.06.2015.
The Settlement Commission recorded that, upon being confronted
with the invoices reflecting the actual value and the Statements of
Account maintained by M/s Seville Products Ltd., Shri Navin Singh
admitted that the values reflected therein represented the actual value
of the consignments imported by the Petitioner. He further admitted
that the difference between the actual invoices and the invoices
submitted to the Customs authorities was paid through Shri Sumit
Khandelwal and/or Shri Manoj Dugar. He also admitted that the RSP
in respect of the goods imported under the 21 Bills of Entry had been
misdeclared.
8. The investigation quantified the differential Customs duty
payable in respect of the 21 Bills of Entry at Rs.1,15,88,712/-. The
break-up of the differential duty, as noticed by the Settlement
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
W.P.(C) 3391/2018
Signing Date:16.09.2026 Page 3 of 20
16:48:30
Commission, is set out below:
Sr. Port of Period No. of Declared Re- Differentia
No. Import Bill of Ass Value determined l Duty
Entry Value
1 Nhava Within 7 3804600 12906607 4098395
Seva 5 years
2 ICS Within 1 453967 1552828 469969
TKD 5 years
Total 8 4258567 14459435 4568364
3 Nhava Beyond 9 7316587 18499019 4794160
Sheva 5 years
4 ICD Beyond 2 1478925 4354590 1159990
TKD 5 years
5 Chennai Beyond 2 1453062 4068454 1066198
5 years
Total 13 10248574 26922063 7020348
Grand Total 21 14507141 41381498 11588712
9. The above figures are significant to the controversy before this
Court. Out of the total differential duty of Rs.1,15,88,712/-, an amount
of Rs.45,68,364/- related to imports falling within five years, whereas
an amount of Rs.70,20,348/- related to imports which were beyond
five years.
10. During the course of investigation, the Petitioner deposited a
total amount of Rs.85,00,000/- voluntarily. The Settlement
Commission recorded that, in his statement dated 26.06.2015, Shri
Navin Singh admitted the differential duty liability of Rs.1,15,88,712/-
and stated that the amount of Rs.85,00,000/- voluntarily deposited
during investigation should be adjusted towards the differential duty
payable for the period 2008-09 to 2010-11. He further stated that the
remaining amount would be paid subsequently which was not
deposited or paid.
11. The manner in which the said voluntary deposit of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
W.P.(C) 3391/2018
Signing Date:16.09.2026 Page 4 of 20
16:48:30
Rs.85,00,000/- was proposed to be appropriated towards the
differential duty pertaining to the imports beyond five years was also
noticed in the proceedings. The relevant break-up is as under:
Sr No. Port of Period Differential Amount Balance
Import Duty (Rs.) deposited amount left
voluntary (Rs.)
(Rs.)
3 Nhava Beyond 5 4794160
Sheva years
4 ICD TKD Beyond 5 1159990 85,00,000/- 14,79,652/-
years
5 Chennai Beyond 5 1066198
years
Total 7020348/- 85,00,000/- 14,79,652/-
12. After conclusion of the investigation, the DRI issued the Show
Cause Notice dated 21.08.2015. The Show Cause Notice, inter alia,
proposed re-determination of the transaction value of the goods
imported under the 21 Bills of Entry, re-determination of the RSP,
demand of differential duty of Rs.45,68,364/- pertaining to the period
within five years under the extended period contemplated by Section
28 of the Customs Act, 1962 [hereinafter referred to as “Customs
Act”], along with applicable interest, and appropriation of
Rs.70,20,348/- from the amount of Rs.85,00,000/- voluntarily
deposited during investigation towards the differential duty pertaining
to the period beyond five years.
13. The Show Cause Notice further proposed confiscation of the
imported goods under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs
Act, though the goods were not physically available, imposition of
penalty upon Shri Navin Singh, proprietor of the Petitioner-firm,
under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, and appropriation of
the balance amount of Rs.14,79,652/- towards the duty and interest
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
W.P.(C) 3391/2018
Signing Date:16.09.2026 Page 5 of 20
16:48:30
liability.
14. The Show Cause Notice was initially answerable to three
different adjudicating authorities having jurisdiction over the
respective ports of import. The relevant particulars of the
consignments and the adjudicating authorities, as noticed in the
proceedings, are set out below:
Sr. Port Period No. of Declared Re- Differenti Adjudicating
No. of Bill of Ass Value determined al Duty Authority
Import Entry Value
1 Nhava Within 7 3804600 12906607 4098395 Joint/Addition
Seva 5 years al
Commissioner
, Nhava Sheva
-1, Mumbai-
Zone-II
2 ICS Within 1 453967 1552828 469969 Joint/Addition
TKD 5 years al
Commissioner
, ICD TKD
(import)
Total 8 4258567 14459435 4568364
3 Nhava Beyon 9 7316587 18499019 4794160 Joint/Addition
Sheva d 5 al
years Commissioner
, Nhava Sheva
-1, Mumbai-
Zone-II
4 ICD Beyon 2 1478925 4354590 1159990 Joint/Addition
TKD d 5 al
years Commissioner
, ICD TKD
(import)
5 Chenn Beyon 2 1453062 4068454 1066198 Joint/Addition
ai d 5 al
years Commissioner
, Chennai II
Total 13 1024857 26922063 7020348
4
Grand Total 21 1450714 41381498 1158871
1 2
15. The Show Cause Notice accordingly called upon the Petitioner
to show cause, inter alia, as to why the transaction value of the goods
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
W.P.(C) 3391/2018
Signing Date:16.09.2026 Page 6 of 20
16:48:30
imported under the 21 Bills of Entry should not be taken as per the
actual value invoices and the assessable value re-determined as
Rs.4,13,81,498/- under Section 14 of the Customs Act read with Rule
3(1) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported
Goods) Rules, 2007, instead of the declared assessable value of
Rs.1,45,07,141/-.
16. The Petitioner was further called upon to show cause as to why
the declared RSP should not be rejected and re-determined; why
differential duty of Rs.45,68,364/- pertaining to the period within five
years should not be demanded and recovered under the extended
period contemplated by Section 28 of the Customs Act along with
applicable interest; why the amount of Rs.70,20,348/- pertaining to the
period beyond five years should not be appropriated from the amount
of Rs.85,00,000/- voluntarily deposited during investigation; and why
the imported goods should not be held liable to confiscation and the
applicable penalties not imposed.
17. M/s Seville Products Ltd. and its CEO, Mrs. Prerna Singh, were
also called upon to show cause as to why penalty under Section 112(a)
of the Customs Act should not be imposed upon them. Shri Sumit
Khandelwal and Shri Manoj Dugar, Directors of M/s Dugar Overseas
Pvt. Ltd., were likewise called upon to show cause as to why penalty
under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act should not be imposed upon
them.
18. The Petitioner thereafter approached the Settlement
Commission under Chapter XIV-A of the Customs Act. In its
settlement application, the Petitioner admitted the differential duty
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
W.P.(C) 3391/2018
Signing Date:16.09.2026 Page 7 of 20
16:48:30
liability of Rs.45,68,364/- pertaining to imports through Nhava Sheva
and ICD Tughlakabad falling within the period of five years, along
with interest liability quantified at Rs.30,73,905/-. The Petitioner
requested that the admitted duty and interest liability be adjusted from
the amount of Rs.85,00,000/- deposited during investigation.
19. In respect of the remaining amount of Rs.70,20,348/- pertaining
to the period beyond five years, the Petitioner disputed its liability on
the ground that the same was beyond the extended period prescribed
under Section 28 of the Customs Act and relied upon various
decisions in support of its contention. The Petitioner also sought
waiver of fine in lieu of confiscation on the ground that the goods
were no longer available for confiscation and sought immunity from
prosecution and penalty.
20. Since the Show Cause Notice was answerable to three
adjudicating authorities, the Petitioner sought transfer of the
proceedings to the Principal Bench of the Settlement Commission. A
common adjudicating authority had, in the meantime, been appointed
pursuant to the relevant order and notification.
21. The Settlement Commission, after considering the settlement
applications, the reply of the Revenue and the submissions advanced
at the hearing, passed the Impugned Order dated 26.02.2018 under
Section 127C(5) of the Customs Act.
22. The Settlement Commission accepted the differential duty
liability of Rs.45,68,364/- pertaining to the period within five years.
As regards the amount of Rs.70,20,348/- pertaining to the period
beyond five years, the Settlement Commission held that although the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
W.P.(C) 3391/2018
Signing Date:16.09.2026 Page 8 of 20
16:48:30
limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act restricted the
Department's statutory power to issue a demand beyond the prescribed
period, such limitation did not prevent the importer from voluntarily
paying the duty liability.
23. The Settlement Commission, in particular, took note of the
statement of Shri Navin Singh dated 26.06.2015, wherein he had
admitted the total differential duty liability of Rs.1,15,88,712/- and
had stated that the amount of Rs.85,00,000/- voluntarily deposited by
the Petitioner should be adjusted towards the differential duty payable
for the period 2008-09 to 2010-11.
24. On that basis, the Settlement Commission appropriated
Rs.70,20,348/- out of the amount of Rs.85,00,000/- towards the
differential duty pertaining to the imports beyond five years. The
remaining amount of Rs.14,79,652/- was appropriated towards the
settled duty liability of Rs.45,68,364/-, leaving a balance duty liability
of Rs.30,88,712/-.
25. The Settlement Commission further directed the jurisdictional
Commissioners to calculate the interest liability and communicate the
same to the Petitioner. Although the goods were held liable to
confiscation, no redemption fine was imposed since the goods were
not physically available and had not been seized. Penalties were
imposed upon the Petitioner and the co-applicants in terms of the
Impugned Order and immunity from prosecution, subject to fulfilment
of the stipulated conditions, was also granted.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
W.P.(C) 3391/2018
Signing Date:16.09.2026 Page 9 of 20
16:48:30
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:
26. Contentions of the Petitioner:
26.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Settlement
Commission could not have permitted appropriation of Rs.70,20,348/-
towards the differential duty pertaining to imports beyond the period
of five years prescribed under Section 28 of the Customs Act.
26.2. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Bombay High
Court in C.J. Shah & Co. v. Union of India & Anr.1, to contend that
the Revenue cannot recover a demand which is barred by limitation.
According to learned counsel, once the Settlement Commission itself
noticed that the relevant Bills of Entry related to a period beyond five
years, the amount relatable thereto could not have been appropriated
from the deposit made by the Petitioner.
26.3. It is further submitted that the Petitioner, in its settlement
application, had specifically disputed the liability of Rs.70,20,348/- on
the ground that the amount pertained to imports beyond the extended
period of five years. He submits that the Petitioner had sought
settlement only of the admitted liability of Rs.45,68,364/- together
with applicable interest and had never sought settlement of the amount
of Rs.70,20,348/-.
26.4. Learned counsel further submits that Section 127C(5) of the
Customs Act empowers the Settlement Commission to pass an order
in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act and, therefore,
the Settlement Commission could not have travelled beyond the
1
(2018) 359 ELT 22 (Bom.)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
W.P.(C) 3391/2018
Signing Date:16.09.2026 Page 10 of 20
16:48:30
limitation prescribed under Section 28. It is contended that the
direction for appropriation of Rs.70,20,348/- effectively amounts to
permitting recovery of a time-barred demand.
27. Contentions of the Respondents:
27.1. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents
submits that the Petitioner seeks to conflate two distinct matters,
namely, the statutory power of the Department to issue a demand
under Section 28 of the Customs Act and the voluntary payment
already made by the Petitioner during the course of investigation.
27.2. He submits that no fresh demand under Section 28 was raised
for the period beyond five years. According to him, the amount of
Rs.85,00,000/- had already been voluntarily deposited by the
Petitioner and Shri Navin Singh, proprietor of the Petitioner-firm, had
specifically stated in his statement dated 26.06.2015 that the said
amount should be adjusted towards the differential duty payable for
the period 2008-09 to 2010-11.
27.3. It is further submitted that the statements of Shri Navin Singh
dated 11.02.2014 and 26.06.2015 were never retracted. Learned
Standing Counsel also points out that the Petitioner has not filed any
rejoinder to the counter-affidavit and has not placed before this Court
the aforesaid statements, notwithstanding the specific reliance placed
upon them by the Settlement Commission as well as the Respondents.
27.4. He submits that the Settlement Commission was exercising
jurisdiction under Chapter XIV-A of the Customs Act in proceedings
initiated at the instance of the Petitioner itself. The Petitioner had
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
W.P.(C) 3391/2018
Signing Date:16.09.2026 Page 11 of 20
16:48:30
approached the Settlement Commission seeking settlement of its
liability and consequential immunity. The Impugned Order, according
to the Respondents, therefore, carries the finality contemplated under
Section 127J of the Customs Act.
27.5. Reliance has also been placed upon India Cements Ltd. v.
Collector of Central Excise, Madras2, for the proposition that
limitation operates against the remedy available to the Revenue for
recovery through the statutory demand mechanism, but does not
prevent voluntary payment of an admitted liability from being retained
and appropriated
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS:
28. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
29. The amount of Rs.85,00,000/- had already been deposited by
the Petitioner during the course of investigation. The Settlement
Commission has recorded that Shri Navin Singh, proprietor of the
Petitioner-firm, in his statement dated 26.06.2015, admitted the total
differential duty liability of Rs.1,15,88,712/- and stated that the
amount of Rs.85,00,000/- voluntarily deposited during investigation
should be adjusted towards the differential duty payable for the period
2008-09 to 2010-11.
30. The distinction between the statutory demand mechanism and
the treatment of an amount already voluntarily deposited is material to
the adjudication of the present Petition. The question before this Court
2
1984 (18) E.L.T. 499 (Trib.)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
W.P.(C) 3391/2018
Signing Date:16.09.2026 Page 12 of 20
16:48:30
is not whether the Department could, after expiry of the statutory
period, initiate a fresh proceeding for recovery of the amount of
Rs.70,20,348/-. The question is whether, in the settlement proceedings
initiated by the Petitioner, the Settlement Commission could take into
consideration the voluntary deposit already made and direct its
appropriation in the manner recorded in the Impugned Order.
31. The Settlement Commission has specifically recorded the
statement of Shri Navin Singh dated 26.06.2015. It has also recorded
that the Petitioner had voluntarily deposited Rs.85,00,000/- during
investigation and that the said amount was to be adjusted towards the
differential duty payable for the period 2008-09 to 2010-11.
32. The Respondents have reiterated this factual position in
paragraph 3 of their counter-affidavit. The said paragraph reads as
under:
“3. I say and submit that the Petitioner's proprietor, Sh. Navin
Singh made a categorical statement on 11.02.2014 and 26.06.2015
during the course of investigation before the custom authorities
wherein he voluntarily admitted that he was involved in the illegal
practice of evasion of custom duty as enumerated in the paragraph
above. He further accepted the Petitioner's liability to pay the
differential custom duty of INR. 1,15,88,712/- to the Department of
Custom which was inclusive of the differential duty payable for the
period 2008-09 to 2010-11. In pursuance of this, the Petitioner
voluntarily deposited a sum of INR. 85,00,000/- towards payment and
adjustment of differential custom duty stated above further made a
statement to pay the outstanding amount of INR. 30,99,712/- within
one week from the relevant date.”
33. Significantly, no rejoinder to the counter-affidavit has been
filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has also not placed on record the
statements dated 11.02.2014 and 26.06.2015 of Shri Navin Singh.
Consequently, there is no material before this Court which would
enable it to dislodge the factual findings recorded by the Settlement
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
W.P.(C) 3391/2018
Signing Date:16.09.2026 Page 13 of 20
16:48:30
Commission regarding the admissions made by Shri Navin Singh, the
voluntary nature of the deposit and the purpose for which the amount
was to be adjusted.
34. In particular, the Petitioner has not placed before this Court any
material demonstrating that the statement dated 26.06.2015, as noticed
by the Settlement Commission, was subsequently retracted. The
Settlement Commission itself has proceeded on the basis that the
admission and the voluntary payment were not retracted.
35. It is, therefore, not a case where the Revenue, after expiry of the
period prescribed under Section 28 of the Customs Act, unilaterally
recovered Rs.70,20,348/- from the Petitioner. The amount of
Rs.85,00,000/- had already been voluntarily deposited during
investigation. The Settlement Commission thereafter considered the
manner in which the said amount was to be appropriated in the
settlement proceedings, in light of the statement and admission
attributed to the proprietor of the Petitioner-firm.
36. The principle relied upon by the Respondents, namely, that
expiry of limitation ordinarily bars the remedy but does not, by itself,
extinguish the underlying right, has been noticed in India Cements
Ltd. (supra). The present case turns upon the more limited question of
treatment of an amount which had already been voluntarily deposited
by the Petitioner and which, according to the factual findings of the
Settlement Commission, had been directed by the Petitioner to be
adjusted towards the differential duty for the relevant period.
37. The figures recorded in the Impugned Order also make the
nature of the direction clear. The total differential duty was quantified
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
W.P.(C) 3391/2018
Signing Date:16.09.2026 Page 14 of 20
16:48:30
at Rs.1,15,88,712/-. Of this, Rs.45,68,364/- related to the imports
within five years and Rs.70,20,348/- related to imports beyond five
years. Against this liability, Rs.85,00,000/- had already been
voluntarily deposited. The Settlement Commission appropriated
Rs.70,20,348/- from the said deposit towards the liability pertaining to
the period beyond five years and thereafter appropriated the balance
amount of Rs.14,79,652/- towards the settled liability of
Rs.45,68,364/-.
38. Thus, the Settlement Commission did not determine the liability
of Rs.70,20,348/- by issuing a fresh demand under Section 28 in the
Impugned Order. Rather, it dealt with an amount which had already
been deposited by the Petitioner during investigation and considered
its appropriation in light of the admission and request recorded in the
statement of the proprietor.
39. The submission of the Petitioner that the amount of
Rs.70,20,348/- had never been sought to be adjusted by it also cannot
be accepted at this stage. It is correct that, in the settlement
application, the Petitioner disputed its liability to pay Rs.70,20,348/-
on the ground that the amount pertained to imports beyond the
extended period of five years. However, the Settlement Commission
has recorded a separate and specific factual finding based upon the
statement of Shri Navin Singh dated 26.06.2015, namely, that the
amount of Rs.85,00,000/- voluntarily deposited during investigation
was to be adjusted towards the differential duty payable for the period
2008-09 to 2010-11.
40. The distinction between the stand taken in the settlement
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
W.P.(C) 3391/2018
Signing Date:16.09.2026 Page 15 of 20
16:48:30
application and the request recorded in the statement during
investigation is important. The Petitioner may have disputed the
enforceability of the amount of Rs.70,20,348/- under Section 28 in the
settlement application; nevertheless, the Settlement Commission was
entitled to consider the factual record concerning the purpose for
which the Rs.85,00,000/- had been voluntarily deposited and the
manner in which the proprietor had stated that it should be adjusted.
41. There is no material placed before this Court to demonstrate
that the Settlement Commission's recording of the statement dated
26.06.2015 is incorrect. There is also no rejoinder controverting the
specific averments made in paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit. In the
absence of such material, the factual findings of the Settlement
Commission cannot be displaced merely on the basis of a subsequent
assertion made in the writ proceedings.
42. The reliance placed by the Petitioner upon the judgment of the
Bombay High Court in C.J. Shah & Company (supra) does not, in our
view, advance its case in the factual setting before this Court.
43. The circumstances considered by the Bombay High Court in
C.J. Shah & Company (supra) were materially different. The payment
considered therein was made without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of the assessee and the Court was not examining a
situation where an importer had voluntarily deposited an amount
during investigation and had specifically stated that the amount was to
be adjusted towards the differential duty pertaining to the relevant
imports beyond five years.
44.
Signature Not Verified
The distinction is further material because C.J. Shah &
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
W.P.(C) 3391/2018
Signing Date:16.09.2026 Page 16 of 20
16:48:30
Company (supra) concerned Anti-Dumping Duty and involved a
different factual controversy relating to the origin of the imported
goods, wherein the goods were subsequently found to be of Chinese
origin rather than Taiwan. The Bombay High Court was, therefore,
dealing with a factual and legal situation materially different from the
one before this Court.
45. The proposition that the Revenue cannot invoke the statutory
machinery under Section 28 after expiry of the period prescribed
therein is not, by itself, sufficient to decide the present case. The
present case concerns the treatment of a voluntary deposit already
made during investigation, coupled with a finding of the Settlement
Commission that the proprietor had admitted the liability and had
indicated the manner in which the deposit was to be adjusted.
46. The contention that the Settlement Commission, by directing
appropriation of Rs.70,20,348/-, effectively brought a time-barred
demand through the “back door” also cannot be accepted. The
Impugned Order has to be read as a whole. The Settlement
Commission first settled the differential duty liability pertaining to the
period within five years at Rs.45,68,364/-. It thereafter considered the
amount of Rs.85,00,000/- already deposited and, on the basis of the
factual findings recorded by it, held that the amount of Rs.70,20,348/-
towards the differential duty pertaining to the period beyond five years
stands already appropriated. The remaining Rs.14,79,652/- was
thereafter adjusted towards the settled liability of Rs.45,68,364/-.
47. Section 127J of the Customs Act provides finality to an order of
settlement in terms of the statutory scheme. Such finality does not, of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
W.P.(C) 3391/2018
Signing Date:16.09.2026 Page 17 of 20
16:48:30
course, exclude the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the availability of
judicial review does not mean that the writ jurisdiction is to be
exercised as an appellate jurisdiction over the factual findings
recorded by the Settlement Commission.
48. This Court would certainly be entitled to interfere where the
Settlement Commission has acted without jurisdiction, has violated
the principles of natural justice, has committed a manifest error of law,
or has rendered a conclusion which is wholly unsupported by the
record. In the present case, however, no such infirmity has been
demonstrated.
49. The Petitioner itself invoked the jurisdiction of the Settlement
Commission under Chapter XIV-A of the Customs Act. The
Settlement Commission considered the Petitioner's admission
regarding the differential duty within five years, its objection
regarding the amount beyond five years, the voluntary deposit of
Rs.85,00,000/- and the statements of the proprietor. The conclusion
regarding appropriation of the amount was thus reached on the basis
of the material before the Settlement Commission.
50. The fact that the Petitioner disputed the enforceability of
Rs.70,20,348/- in its settlement application does not, by itself,
establish that the Settlement Commission was precluded from
considering the admitted factual position concerning the voluntary
deposit. The challenge before this Court, in substance, seeks
reconsideration of the factual finding as to the purpose and manner of
adjustment of the amount already deposited.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
W.P.(C) 3391/2018
Signing Date:16.09.2026 Page 18 of 20
16:48:30
51. This Court is unable to undertake such a re-appreciation of the
factual record in exercise of judicial review, particularly when the
relevant statements have not been placed before this Court and the
factual averments contained in the counter-affidavit have not been
controverted by filing a rejoinder.
52. This Court also finds no merit in the submission that the
Impugned Order amounts to a fresh determination or recovery of
Rs.70,20,348/- under Section 28 of the Customs Act. The operative
direction concerns appropriation of an amount already voluntarily
deposited during investigation. The finding rendered herein is
confined to this factual situation and should not be understood as
diluting or extending the statutory period prescribed under Section 28.
53. The present case, therefore, stands on a different footing from a
case where the Department seeks to initiate or enforce a statutory
demand after expiry of the limitation period prescribed under Section
28. Here, the amount had already been deposited voluntarily; the
proprietor had made statements acknowledging the differential duty
liability; the Settlement Commission recorded that the statements had
not been retracted; and the Settlement Commission further recorded a
specific request regarding adjustment of the deposit towards the
differential duty pertaining to the period 2008-09 to 2010-11.
54. In these circumstances, the Petitioner has failed to establish any
jurisdictional error, violation of natural justice, or manifest error of
law warranting interference with the Impugned Order in exercise of
the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
W.P.(C) 3391/2018
Signing Date:16.09.2026 Page 19 of 20
16:48:30
CONCLUSION
55. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no ground to
interfere with Final Order No. F.-3276 to 3278/CUS/2018-SC(PB)
dated 26.02.2018 passed by the Customs, Central Excise and Service
Tax Settlement Commission, Principal Bench, New Delhi.
56. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition, along with the pending
application, is dismissed.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
SHAIL JAIN, J.
SEPTEMBER 16, 2026
jai/pal
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
W.P.(C) 3391/2018
Signing Date:16.09.2026 Page 20 of 20
16:48:30
Disclaimer: Educational and research material only; not legal, tax, investment or professional advice. Verify the controlling court record, statutory version, jurisdiction and subsequent history.