TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Noticee No. 2, 3 and 4. It is also observed that no reasonable time was granted for these three dates as there has been two days gap in each of the dates (4.8.2017, 7.8.2017 and 9.8.2017). As far as the main noticee/importer is concerned, there is no such mention that notice served to him was received back undelivered . Still Noticee No. 1 has been granted opportunity of being heard by the Original Adjudicating Authority as his matter has been remanded for denovo adjudication. There is no reason in the Order-in-Appeal for distinct decision given for Noticee No.1 while denying the same opportunity of personal hearing to the remaining noticees including the present appellant. In the given circumstances and in the interest of justice, appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ignment was found to be of Dietary Supplements. On further examination the value of the goods imported was found to be that of ₹ 1,21,45,550/-(Rupees One crore twenty one lakh forty five thousand five hundred and fifty only). Alleging the mis-declaration and under valuation of the impugned consignment that the Show cause notice No. 172/2015 dated 12.5.2016 was served upon the aforementioned importer, CHA and also upon the present appellant / Shri Dhananjay Kumar Singh and one Shri Sourav Gulati, proposing recovery of re-determined value of the consignment along with the interest and also proposing the imposition of penalties upon all the co-noticees under section 112, 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. This proposal was initially confirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has expressed no objection if the impugned matter may also be remanded back for denovo adjudication. 5. After hearing both the parties, I observe none of the four noticees of the impugned show cause notice had marked their presence before the original adjudicating authority. Though three dates have been mentioned in the order as the date of personal hearing for all four of them, but it is specifically been recorded in para 39.2 of Order-in Original that the notice for three of these dates were received back undelivered from the postal authorities with respect to the Noticee No. 2, 3 and 4. It is also observed that no reasonable time was granted for these three dates as there has been two days gap in each of the dates (4.8.2017, 7.8.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
