Case Law Details
M C Punjwani Vs Commissioner of Custom (CESTAT Mumbai)
Application for Compounding of Offence can’t be rejected on Technical Grounds since It’s Prime Object is to prevent Litigation.
The purpose of compounding of offences against payment of compounding amount is to prevent litigation and encourage early settlement of dispute. In the guidelines issued vide Circular No. 15/10/2009 no prohibition has been imposed against deciding the application for compounding of offences which were earlier rejected on the technical ground being outside the purview, nor there is any embargo that if the application has been rejected earlier the same cannot be entertained again even if it falls within the purview of compounding of offences as per the guidelines of 2009. A perusal of the said circular/guidelines makes it clear that it is not applicable only qua those case which has been specifically excluded in that circular/guidelines from the purview of compounding. It is not the case of the Appellant that the offence committed by him is no longer an offence. His only plea is that now the offence under the Provision of IPC can also be compounded as per the Circular of 2009.
Going by the reasoning given by the learned Commissioner, the very purpose of compounding of offence i.e. to prevent litigation and encouraged earlier settlement of dispute, will be defeated. The Application for compounding of offences can be rejected only on the grounds mentioned in the guidelines issued by Circular dated 2009 and not otherwise. After going through the guidelines issued by Circular dated 2009, CESTAT is of the view that the Application filed by the Appellant for compounding falls within the four corners of the Circular dated 2009 and the same deserve to be allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
