Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2023 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 357 - HC - CustomsDemand of custom duty raised under Section 28B of the Customs Act 1962 - proceedings initiated were barred by limitation or not - respondent had imported goods for supply to the Ordinance Equipment Factory, Kanpur (OEF) without payment of duty - benefit of the N/N. 39/96-Customs dated 23.07.1996 - HELD THAT:- It is relevant to note that the period of limitation as provided under Section 28 of the Customs Act is a period of five years from the relevant date. It is, thus, apparent that the learned CESTAT had proceeded on the basis that a reasonable period for taking an action under Section 28B of the Customs Act would also be a period of five years - Thus, even if it is accepted that the limitation period under Section 28 of the Customs Act cannot per se be imputed to any action under Section 28B of the Customs Act, there can be no cavil that action should be taken within a reasonable period. In this case, it is apparent that the learned CESTAT found that the period of five years, which is the prescribed period of limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act, would be a reasonable period. The 39 Bills of Entries were filed during the period of August, 1996 to January, 2004. The Show Cause Notice dated 06.03.2013, has been issued approximately nine years after the last Bill of Entry. In the given facts, we are unable to accept that the appellant had issued the notice within a reasonable period. There is no substantial question of law that arises for consideration by this Court in this appeal - Appeal dismissed.
|