Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2019 (7) TMI 1433 - HC - CustomsTime limit for issuance of SCN - Seizure/Detention of goods - Did the CESTAT fall into error in holding that goods had to be released in the circumstances of the case since no notice preceded extension of detention under Proviso to Section 110(2) of the Customs Act 1962? HELD THAT - There is no time limit for issuing a show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act. However in case a show cause notice is not issued for some reason Section 110 would operate. Section 110 (2) states that goods cannot be detained for more than six months unless a show cause notice (i.e. under Section 124) is issued; the proviso clothes the revenue with the power of extending the period by another six months. Under the pre-amended law the power under the proviso could be exercised for sufficient cause - Now the amendment has done away with that expression; the power to extend (the period of detention) after amendment states that if the Commissioner of Customs may for reasons to be recorded in writing extend such period to a further period not exceeding six months and inform the person from whom such good were seized before the expiry of the period so specified. The change in the statute in the opinion of this court is a significant one. The previous provision required the Commissioner to show sufficient cause which meant that such cause had to be based on objective considerations. The amended provision merely requires the Commissioner to record the reasons in writing and inform the person from whom such good were seized before the expiry of the period so specified . In this court s considered view the amended provision deliberately sought to overbear the previous view that a notice before extension was necessary. Now two conditions are to be satisfied one the Commissioner has to record his reasons in writing why the extension is necessary and two inform the person from whom such good were seized before the expiry of the period so specified. The latter condition is equally important in the opinion of this court because it is a pre-requisite for the exercise of the power of extension. The pre-amended provision was silent on this aspect. This Court is of opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|