TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 66
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Revenue'). 2. The facts of the case, in brief, as per the SCN are that intelligence was received that the applicant had misdeclared the value, quantity and description of goods imported vide Bill of entry no. 5077360, dated 28-4-16. The goods imported in container no. DRYU9137640 vide above Bill of entry were examined on 1/2-5-2016 . On examination, it was found that goods declared by applicant as Glass Beads appeared to be Glass Chattons, the actual gross and net weight of Glass Chattons was found to be 11908.30 Kgs. & 11348.95 Kgs. as against declared quantity of 4685 Kgs & 4217 Kgs respectively and actual gross and net weight of Drinking water glass was found to be 13286.4 Kgs and 12177.60 Kgs as against declared quantity of Rs. 21258.4 kgs and 19788.4 Kgs. The goods were accordingly seized. 3. During investigation, the samples drawn of Glass beads were found to be Glass Chattons. The value was redetermined on the basis of NIDB data and Market enquiry. The seized goods were released to the applicant provisionally on execution of Bond for full redetermined value of Rs. 1,58,91,065/-, Bank guarantee of 25% of Bond amount and payment of differential duty of Rs. 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lty imposed on Ms. Shewta Agarwal, as she being the Proprietor does not have separate identity. 6. The applications for settlement were received on 21-3-2017. It was found that the application meet the requirements as laid down in Central Excise (Settlement of Cases) Rules, 2007 and Customs & Central Excise Settlement Commission Procedure Rules, 2007. Accordingly, the settlement application was allowed to be proceeded with on 24-3-2017. A report was also called for from the Jurisdictional Commissioner. 7. The Jurisdictional Commissioner vide letter dated 9-5-2017, informed that settlement application is not maintainable as the SCN has been decided vide Order-in-Original No. 12/2017 by Joint Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur on 10-3-2017 much before filing of settlement application. It has also been informed that the same was served upon the applicant at A-1603, Heritage, Sector-62, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 through speed post no. ER367257633IN, dated 14-3-2017. The same was returned back from postal department with remarks "bina Dave returned". The said SCN was also served upon Ms. Shweta Agarwal, Proprietor of the applicant firm at the same address on 31-3-2017. 8.&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Consultant appearing on behalf of applicant submitted that the case was adjudicated on 10-3-2017 and order was dispatched by Speed Post on 14-3-2017, which was returned to Department unclaimed; that Speed Post, has not been prescribed as a mode of Service of an order as per Section 153 of Customs Act, 1962. The Settlement Application was filed by them on 21-3-2017 and the adjudication order was actually received by them only on 31-3-2017. They had no intention of not taking the delivery order, but the applicant had gone to Meerut on 16-3-2017 with family as their uncle Shri Pawan Kumar Aggarwal was attacked and physically assaulted on 15-3-2017. The applicant had stayed there for a week and thus Speed Post was returned back as unclaimed. Shri R.G. Chaudhary submitted copies of FIR and medical reports. (ii) Shri R.G. Chaudhaiy also drew attention to the identical case in respect of M/s. Emjay Creation - 2007 (219) E.L.T. 776 (Sett. Comm.) of Additional Bench, Mumbai , wherein, the adjudication order was passed, but was not delivered to the applicant. Shri R.G. Chaudhaiy informed that Additional Bench, Mumbai in its order dated 8-8-2001 held that till the order is pronounced ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 14-3-2017. The same was returned back from postal department with remarks "bina dave returned". The said communication was also served upon Ms. Shweta Agarwal, Proprietor of the applicant firm at the same address on 31-3-2017. The Order-in-Original dated 10-3-2017 passed by Joint Commissioner of Customs, Jodhpur, apart from confirming Customs duty liability of Rs. 46,78,488/- has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 46,78,488/- on the applicant and Rs. 25,000/- on Ms. Shewta Aggarwal. Apart from this goods valued at Rs. 1,58,91,065/- which were seized and provisionally released on execution of Bond and Bank Guarantee, an option was given to the applicant to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 30,00,000/-. 14. In view of the above and circumstances of the case, we note that the exclusive jurisdiction of Settlement Commission as per sub-section (2) of Section 127(F) starts from the date on which the application is allowed to be proceeded with. In the instant case, the Settlement Application received on 21-3-2017 was allowed to be proceeded with on 24-3-2017. Before the commencement of the exclusive jurisdiction of Settlement Commission, the case had been adjud....