TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... val hall. The gold chain allegedly concealed in the neck area and two Gold Biscuits allegedly hidden in his both socks were found and the same were weighed with the help of electronic weighing scale available in the customs arrival hall; they also witness one Mr. C.N. Badrinath being requested for valuation, who heeds to the request and weighs the above items there only and informs that as on 04.10.2016, the rate per gram was ₹ 3138/-, assess the value of the above items at ₹ 10,45,833/-; he also submits a certificate dated 04.10.2016, etc. - 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 SCN dated 21.03.2017. The appellants submitted reply dated 16.05.2017 to the notice and also appeared for personal hearing. The Additional Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore passed Order-in-Original No. 43/2017-18 (AP-ADM) dated 01.01.2018 confirming confiscation of Gold Chain and 2 Gold Biscuits totally weighing 333.280 gms of 24 Karat/99.9% purity gold value @ ₹ 10,45,833/- seized under Mahazar dated 03.10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 during the course of arguments. The fact that the impugned goods were seized from the person of the appellant is not dispute nor is there any denial with regard to the Gold Biscuits concealed inside his socks. The contentions of the Learned Counsel that the Mahazar drawn is not beyond suspicion deserves credit because, there appears to be some serious mis-match with regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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, 1989 (42) ELT 338 (SC) wherein, with regard to the time- limit of six months, the Hon ble Court has observed and held as under: 13------ --- --- There can be no right in any person to be informed midway; during an investigation, of the material collected in the case against him. Consequently, while notice may be necessary to such pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 emphasized that the notice must go to the person before the expiry of six months which, is not the case here. Further, admittedly, there is no allegation by the Revenue that the service of the notice in question is for the reasons attributable to the assessee. I also find that the time-limit of six months has also been reiterated, even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
