Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2011 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (3) TMI 313 - MADRAS HIGH COURTDemand - Time barred - Applicability of Section 142(1) ( c ) (ii) - Subsequent purchaser - the agreement of sale between M/s. Falcon Beverages India (P) Ltd., and M/s. Aradhana Bottling company is dated 12.1.1994 - On this date, the proviso to Section 142(1)(c)(ii) of the Customs Act was not in force, It came into effect only on 10.9.2004 i.e. 10 years after signing the agreement and the sale - The proviso states that recovery from the person succeeding to the goods, materials etc. by way of attachment will be based on a written approval of the Commissioner of Customs for the recovery of amount payable by such predecessor at the time of such transfer or disposal or change - the purchaser in this case i.e. the petitioner was under no obligation to bear the duty liability as the goods, which was sold, did not suffer any duty liability on the date of sale - Hence, the first issue is answered against the respondents Proviso to Section 142(1)(c)(ii) of the Act provides for obtaining written approval from the Commissioner of Customs for the purpose of recovering the amount so payable by the said purchaser at the time of transfer or otherwise disposal by change - In the absence of specific order by the Commissioner of Customs as prescribed under the Act, the Tax Recovery Officer has no authority to issue the impugned proceedings against the petitioner - Hence, the second issue is also answered against the respondents Except sending series of letters, which were not served on the importer, no effective steps appears to have been taken to serve on the importer and adjudicate the case - It is, therefore, clear that the concerned officer of the respondents has wasted his time sending notices time and again without proper service and slept over the issue for more than a decade - The delay and laches remain unexplained - The claim for duty against the petitioner is not justified as the inordinate delay and laches on the part of the department further disentitles them to take action against the petitioner - Hence, the third issue is also answered against the respondents
|