Mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6141 OF 2008 Union of India ) through Directorate of Revenue Intelligence) Mumbai Zonal Unit, Mumbai-20. )..Petitioner Vs. 1.Inderjeet Arya ) 2.Shri Kishor Kumar Arya ) 3.M/s.Rajat Pharmachem Ltd. 4.M/s.Rajat Enterprises )..Respondents All situated at Rajat Enclave, ) 102-103A, Wing-A, Gayatri Darshan, ) Thakur Complex, Kandivali (East), ) Mumbai-400 101. ) Mr. R.B. Raghuvanshi, Additional Solicitor General with Smt. A.S. Pai, for the Petitioner. Mr. J. Reis with Mr. V.M. Advani, Mr. A.M. Sachwani and Mr. R.R. Shah i/b. Advani, Sachwani, Heera & Shah, for the respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 30TH JUNE, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER FERDINO I. REBELLO, J.) 1. Revenue had approached this Court against the order of the Settlement Commissioner allowing the application filed by the Respondents to be proceeded with under Section 127B of the Customs Act. This petition was admitted on 5th December, 2008 and fixed peremptorily for hearing on the same day. 2. One of the contentions raised by the respondents was existence of the requirement for exercising jurisdiction namely passage of 180 days had not been completed and consequently the application was premature and/or the show cause notice. Various other contentions were also raised. 3. The petition has now come up for hearing by which time the period of 180 days has already expired. In this context in the facts and circumstances to direct the respondents to make a fresh application, in our opinion, would not be appropriate. On behalf of the the petitioner learned Counsel also submitted that there are findings recorded by the Tribunal which have to be set aside. Those are only prima facie findings for the purpose of determining whether the application can be proceeded with or not. These prima facie findings are open for consideration when the matter is finally disposed of. 4. The e Tribunal while considering the issue of time factor in disposing of the application should exclude the time during which the Writ Petition was pending before this Court for the purpose of counting the period. 5. Considering the above, all questions except as to the period of 180 days left open for consideration by the learned Settlement Commissioner. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) (FERDINO I. REBELLO,J.)