ORDER :

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31.01.2017 passed by the first respondent Settlement Commission in Order No.12-13/2017-Cus. in so far as it has ordered confiscation of goods seized from the petitioner's godown at Bangalore valued at Rs.91,93,230/- and the goods valued at Rs.14,72,634/-.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these goods were seized on 13.01.2016 by the third respondent in respect of which Show Cause Notice dated 11.07.2016 was issued to the petitioner. The said Show Cause Notice called upon the petitioner to show as to why :-

i. the exemption benefit claimed and availed under the Central Excise Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 Serial No.255 in respect of 17 bills of entry as detailed in worksheet-I to the show cause notice, should not be denied and the corresponding duty on merits be demanded as per the quantification made in the said worksheet;

ii. consequently, the differential duty amounting to Rs.61,26,333/- (Rupees sixty one lakhs twenty six thousand three hundred and thirty three only) in respect of the 17 bills of entry as detailed in worksheet-I to the show cause notice should not be demanded in terms of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962;

iii. interest under Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962 should not be recovered on the differential duty amounting to Rs.61,26,332/- (Rupees sixty one lakhs twenty six thousand three hundred and thirty two only) in respect of 17 bills of entry as detailed in worksheet-I to the show cause notice evaded by them;

iv. the declared description of the impugned goods imported vide 17 bills of entry as mentioned in column no.5 of the worksheet-I to this notice should not be rejected and held as refurbished goods as detailed in column no.12 of the said worksheet;

v. the impugned refurbished goods seized in the godown premises of the importer at Bengaluru, as detailed in worksheet-II to this notice, totally valued at Rs.91,93,230/- (Rupees ninety one lakhs ninety three thousand two hundred and thirty only) should not be confiscated under Section 111(d), Section 111(m) and Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 17 of the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 read with Section 11(1) of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and Rules 11 and 14 of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993 for importing refurbished goods and for wrong availment of the notification benefit;

vi. the impugned goods (other than the refurbished goods mentioned in para supra) seized in the godown premises of the importer at Bangaluru, as detailed in worksheet-II to this notice, totally valued at Rs.14,72,634/- (Rupees fourteen lakhs seventy two thousand six hundred and thirty four only) should be confiscated under Section 111(m) and Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 for wrong availment of notification benefit;

vii. the impugned refurbished goods seized in the branch premises of the importer at Chennai, as detailed in worksheet-II to this notice, totally valued at Rs.12,04,605/- (Rupees twelve lakhs four thousand six hundred and five only) should not be confiscated under Section 111(d), Section 111(m) and Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 17 of the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 read with Section 11(1) of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and Rules 11 and 14 of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993 for importing refurbished goods and for wrong availment of the notification benefit;

viii. the impugned refurbished goods seized in the branch premises of the importer at Chennai, as detailed in worksheet-II to this notice, totally valued at Rs.24,800/- (Rupees twenty four thousand