TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 1348
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ef facts necessary for decision in these petitions are that searches were conducted in the premises of the petitioners in July, 2014 during the course of which statements of various individuals were recorded. Similar searches were conducted in the residential premises of the proprietors of some of the applicant company/concerns and further statements were recorded. Show causes notices which were phrased identically were issued on 16.01.2015 demanding duty based upon valuation of the goods seized, as well as in some instances currency seized (these are hereby described as "the first notice"). Thereafter, further statements were recorded and the petitioners deposited the amounts which according to them constituted admitted duty liability of the respondent/department. A further show cause notice to each of the petitioners was issued (hereafter called "the second notice") on 04.12.2015 spelling out additional duty liability in respect of clearance for the past period but in respect of the same goods for which no duty was alleged to have been paid. In these circumstances, on 02.06.2016 all petitioners filed settlement applications (Nos. 5247, 5251, 5252, 5250, 5248 and 5258). The Settle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 have since been superseded by Customs (Settlement Commission) Rules, 2007. Form SC( C)-l has also been amended vide notification no. 54/2007-Cus.(NT) dated 28.05.2007. In addition, we also observe that as per Section 32A(7), a Special Bench can he constituted for the disposal of a particular case and not for deciding the issues as has been done in the case of Yousuff Kasim Sait where the Special Bench has laid down the guidelines for deciding different issues without disposing off any case. We also observe that in the case of Mahindra Petro Chemicals Ltd. Vs.Union of India, the issue before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court was whether an application can be maintained where no Bill of Entry was filed. The issue relating to filing of composite application for more than one SCN was not before the Hori'ble High Court. Regarding the case of Mis. Mangala Ispat (Jaipur) Ltd. settled by the Principal Bench of the Settlement Commission vide Order No. F-2245-50/CE/15-SC(PB), it is true that the Principal Bench has admitted and settled the case where a single application was filed involving more than one SCNs. The Bench in its order has not discussed the reasons for entertaining su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....argely on the structure of the form as then existing. It was highlighted that form has undergone substantial changes with pointed reference to specific show cause notice and "case". In turn he relied upon the authority of the Madras High Court in Optigrab International v. Government of India 2010 (253) ELT 722 (Mad.). In particular reliance was placed upon the following observation: "17. Therefore, in the present case, three show cause notices were issued which were answerable to three different Adjudicating Authorities before three different Commissionerates and as such the cases covered in the three show cause notices are only three different cases(1) before Deputy Commissioner, Chennai(Sea Port)(2) Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin (3) Deputy Commissioner of Customs(Air) Chennai and therefore, they cannot be treated as one single case and as a matter of fact it cannot be clubbed. The appellant cannot seek in aid of Section 219 of Criminal Procedure Code which is alient to the Customs Act especially with reference to the meaning of the 'case' as per Section 127A(b) of the Act which has found its meaning of levy assessment and collection of customs Duty pending ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scribed manner; (b) a show cause notice for recovery of duty issued by the Central Excise Officer has been received by the applicant; (c) the additional amount of duty accepted by the applicant in his application exceeds three lakh rupees; and (d) the applicant has paid the additional amount of excise duty accepted by him along with interest due under [section 11AA]" 10. As is evident "case" means a proceeding in the Act or any other Act for the levy, assessment and collection of excise duty - (this provision has been incorporated for reference in the relevant provision of Customs Act), pending before an adjudicating authority before which the application under Section 32E is made. The decision in Optigrab International (supra) is premised upon the fact that separate show cause notices, that involved adjudication by different authorities, were issued. At the same time, a close reading of the facts of that case reveal that the searches and investigations were common; firms which received the show cause notices were the same; all of which were issued on the same day. What persuaded Madras High Court was that the adjudicating authorities fall in different....