Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2014 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 771 - HC - CustomsPeriod of limitation – issuance of SCN or Delivery of SCN - alleged that SCN given to the petitioner beyond the period of six months – whether mere dispatch of a notice under Section 124(a) of the said Act would imply that the notice was “given” within the meaning of Section 124(a) and Section 110(2) of the said Act - Held that:- Gujarat High Court had clearly held that mere dispatch of a notice to the address of a person does not complete the giving of a notice and that the same would only have been completed if the notice had reached the person concerned or after having been tendered to him had been refused by him. We may say at this juncture itself that we are in full agreement with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Ambalal Morarji Soni (1971 (7) TMI 156 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) and are, therefore, of the view that the notices in the present petition had not been “given” before the terminal date specified in Section 110(2) of the said Act. Show cause notices under Section 124(a) of the said Act bears the dates which happens to be either the last date or the penultimate date of the stipulated period under Section 110(2) of the said Act. It cannot be expected that a document sent by registered post would be delivered on the very same day or even the next day in the ordinary course of post. Furthermore, Section 27 of the General Clauses Act is qualified by the words – “unless a different intention appears.” That different intention is discernible from the expression “informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the goods or to impose a penalty.” While the Madhya Pradesh High Court was right in observing that the object of Section 110(2) and Section 124(a) of the said Act read together was to apprise the concerned person of the grounds on which the confiscation of the goods or imposition of penalty was proposed, with respect, it was wrong when it concluded that when the legislature had used the words “notice is given” it would “obviously mean that the notice must be issued within six months of the date of seizure”. In our view, the expression “notice is given” does not logically translate to the conclusion that “notice must be issued within the stipulated period”. none of the petitioners reviewed the notices under Section 124(a) of the said Act within the time stipulated in Section 110(2) thereof - Following decision of CCE., INDORE Versus RAM KUMAR AGGRAWAL [2012 (9) TMI 112 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] and Ambalal Morarji Soni vs. Union of India and Ors [supra] - Decided in favour of assessee.
|