2019 (6) TMI 1506

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... various brands valued at Rs. 38,15,800/- was seized along with some loose papers. The seized cigarettes were kept at the appellant's premises under supurdnama. Statement of the appellant was recorded and a Show Cause Notice dated 12/6/2014 was issued by the Additional Director, DGCEI, New Delhi. The Joint Commissioner, Central Excise, Patna vide Adjudication Order dated 03/03/2016 passed the following orders:- "(i) I order for confiscation of stock of 7,13,000 filter cigarettes (MRP of Rs. 14,19,000/-) seized on 13.12.2013 under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. (ii) I order for confiscation of stock of 17,12,000 non-filter cigarettes (MRP of Rs. 23,96,800/-) seized on 13.12.2013 under Rule 25 of the Central Exci....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a- I, 2001 (136) E.L.T. 767 (Tri.-Kolkata). (v) Ram Nath Jayant Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 2000 (119) E.L.T. 312 (Tribunal). 4. The Learned Consultant made the Bench go through their grounds of appeal and further contends that there has been violation of Notification No. 29/88-CE(NT) dated 21.10.1988 as amended by Notification No. 14/89-CE(NT) dated 3.03.1989 wherein CBEC has included Cigarettes, Biri and other tobacco product within the purview of Section 110(1A) of the Customs Act, 1962 and as made applicable to the Central Excise. He prays for setting aside the confiscation of cigarettes valued at Rs. 38,15,800/- and penalty imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The main contention of the Ld. Co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken before the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity. Having not done so, the appellant cannot raise the issue of jurisdiction before the Tribunal. 7. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 8. I find that the preliminary objection of the Ld. Consultant is that the Show Cause Notice dated 12.06.2014 was served after 6 months from the date of seizure and therefore, the goods are to be returned to the appellant in terms of Section 110 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962. On this context, I find from the Adjudication order that only one notice was issued and the legible copy of the same was served on the appellant ....