TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 254
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... interviews in connection with his employment. On his return from Dubai on 03.10.2016 at Bangalore Airport, on completion of immigration formalities, the Customs Officers took him aside and asked him to take out gold chain which he was wearing and also asked him to handover any gold that he may be carrying. The appellant removed and handed over the gold chain weighing about 100 gms, which he was wearing, and two Gold Biscuits weighing 233.28 gms (each weighing 116.64 gms) for examination. The Customs Officers issued Customs Receipt No. 1660 dated 04.10.2016 for taking possession of the same. The Customs Officers obtained the appellant's signature on a few documents. Thereafter, the Additional Commissioner of Customs, ACC, Bangalore issued S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....habad & Others, 1987 (29) ELT 9 (All.) maintained in 1999 (108) ELT A123 (SC). 4. Per Contra Learned AR Mr. Gopa Kumar has supported the findings of lower authorities and he also relied upon the following decisions to the effect that it is sufficient if the notice in question is issued within six months and it is not necessary that the delivery of the same should take place within six months. * UOI v. Kanti Tarafdar, 1997 (91) ELT 51 (Cal.) * Rajesh Kumar Jain v. UOI, 1999 (113) ELT 57 (Cal.). * CCE Indore, v. Ram Kumar Aggrawal, 2012 (280) ELT 13 (M.P.) 5. I have considered the contentions, gone through the orders as well as the documents placed on record and have also gone through the various decisions/orders referred to durin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ove items at Rs. 10,45,833/-; he also submits a certificate dated 04.10.2016, etc. I find that the above Mahazar dated 03.10.216 has also been signed by the witnesses on 03.10.2016 wherein it refers to valuation certificate dated 04.06.2016, i.e, the next day. With this discrepancy, the evidentiary value of the Mahazar cannot therefore be sustained. 6. Be that as it may, on a perusal of the documents, I find that the appellant is only questioning the validity of SCN on the ground that the same is in violation of Section 110(2) of the Act. Further, in this connection, Advocate also relied upon the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of I.J. Rao, Assistant Collector of Customs v. Bibhuti Bhusan Bagh, 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the further detention of the goods can produce damage or injury or hardship to the person from whose possession the goods are seized. 14. We have said that notice must go to the person, from whose possession the goods have been seized, before the expiry of the original period of six months. It is possible that while notice is issued before the expiry of that period, service of such notice may not be affected on the person concerned in sufficient time to enable the Collector to make the order of extension before that period expires." 7. The Notice here in this case has gone to the assessee on 04.09.2017, just after the expiry of six months from the date of seizure Mahazar. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred case has emphas....