IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY TUESDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 29TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 24524 of 2005(T) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE,- COCHIN-9. BY ADVS. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON,SC,CEN.BOARD OF EX SRI.JOHN VARGHESE,SC,CEN.BOARD OF EXCIS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- M/S. SOUTHERN PETRO OILS PVT. LTD., 168, PURUSAWALKAM HIGH ROAD, KELLYS, CHENNAI-10. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.C.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR SMT.CHANDINI G.NAIR FOR R1 SRI.C.S.XAVIER FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/09/2011, THE COURT ON 20/09/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 24524 of 2005(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 : TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.45/02 DTD 22/04/2002 P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION LETTER ISSUED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, SIIB (I) JNCH, SHEVA DTD 26/08/2003. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION 09/10/2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1/2004-CUS. DTD 02/01/2004 ISSUED BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DTD 28/10/2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.53/02 DTD 20/08/2002 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS. P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD 02/04/2004. P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER S.A (c) 108/2003 DTD 24/05/2004 OF THE CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CHENNAI. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE STU B.P. RAY, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.24524 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of September, 2011. JUDGMENT In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges Ext.P8 order dated 24.05.2004 issued by the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission permitting settlement of liability on payment of full duty and interest at 10% thereon. 2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. The Standing Counsel contended that this is not a case where the Settlement Commission should have shown the kind of leniency they did because respondent claimed credit of duty against forged Duty Entitlement Pass Books. However, forgery is not done by the respondent, but by the transferors of the Pass Books. Further the Settlement Commission has protected the interest of the Revenue by ensuring payment of full duty and interest at 10%. I do not find any ground to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Settlement Commission in waiver of penalty and reduction of interest. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE. rv O.P. No. -:2:- B.P. RAY, J. ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.© No. 24524 of 2005 O.P. No. -:3:- ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of September, 2011. JUDGMENT