Double jeopardy under settlement schemes does not bar adjudication where seized goods and unquantified duty are expressly excluded.

A settlement certificate under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme barred further proceedings only for the quantified tax arrears it covered; proceedings concerning seized goods and the unquantified portion of the show cause notice were expressly kept alive. Because the impugned adjudication related to that excluded portion, the dispute was not fully and finally concluded under the Scheme. The principle of double jeopardy therefore did not apply, and adjudication on the seized goods remained maintainable against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudication proceedings were barred on the ground that the dispute had already been settled under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, so as to attract the principle of double jeopardy.

Analysis: The settlement certificate under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme showed that only the quantified tax arrears were settled, while proceedings relating to the seized goods were expressly kept alive for adjudication. The certificate also reserved continuation of the show cause notice to the extent it related to goods whose duty had not been quantified. Since the impugned adjudication concerned the excluded portion of the notice, the matter was not fully and finally concluded under the Scheme.

Conclusion: The bar of double jeopardy did not apply, and the adjudication on the seized goods was maintainable against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the prior settlement under the Scheme did not cover the entire dispute, and the order of adjudication was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a settlement scheme expressly excludes part of the show cause notice or reserves proceedings concerning seized goods or unquantified duty, later adjudication on that excluded portion is not barred by double jeopardy or by the settlement certificate.

---