Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2020 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1135 - AT - CustomsJurisdiction - seizure of goods - extension of time u/s 110(2) for issuing Show Cause Notice (SCN) - no notice for personal hearing has been issued before extension of time u/s 11(2) - Principle of natural justice - import of Crystallized Glass Panel B Grade - mis-declaration / undervaluation of goods. HELD THAT:- Seen in the context of these facts, it is apparent that a textual reading of Section 110(2) would lead one to conclude that no separate notice is necessary, before extending the period of limitation by a further six months (for issuance of show cause notice); the authority has to record reasons in writing, which of course, should be based on materials and inform the concerned party about the extension before the expiry of the first period of six months. The decision of Ahmedabad Bench in the case of M/S GASTRADE INTERNATIONAL VERSUS C.C. -KANDLA [2019 (6) TMI 170 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] relied upon where it was held that there is no legal authority with the department for dispensing with the issuance of SCN to the appellant, therefore, the impugned order passed without issuance of any SCN will not sustain. The decision was essentially based on the Delhi Bench of Tribunal decision in the case of M/S SWEES GEMS & JEWELLERY, M/S AARADHYA IMPEX VERSUS CGST & CE, JAIPUR-I [2019 (2) TMI 1375 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] which has been upset by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) , JODHPUR VERSUS SWEES GEMS AND JEWELLERY, AARADHYA IMPEX [2019 (7) TMI 1433 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] - Rajasthan High Court has held that the CESTAT fell 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 Thus, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gastrade International is no longer a valid precedence on this issue. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|