TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by a further period of six months – Found no merit in the Petition – Decided in favour of the Revenue. - WP (C) No. 9508/2015, CM No. 22311/2015 - - - Dated:- 13-10-2015 - Badar Durrez Ahmed And Sanjeev Sachdeva, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr Manish Kaushik For the Respondent : Mr Akshay Makhija, Ms Mahima Bahl, Mr Siddharth Thakur, Ms Sayngeeta Moktan, Ms Sonia Sharma and Ms Neha JUDGMENT Sanjeev Sachdeva, J WP(C) 9508/2015 CM No.22311/2015(stay) 1. The petitioner impugns the order dated 02.09.2015, whereby the Commissioner of Customs has extended the period for issuance of show-cause notice for confiscation of the goods under proviso to Section 110 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 2. The ground is that under proviso to Section 110(2), the power can be exercised by the Commissioner prior to the expiry of initial period of six months stipulated under section 110(2) and in case the said power is not exercised within the stipulated period of six months, the seized goods are liable to be released. It is contended that the goods were seized on 03.03.2015 and the stipulated period would expire on 02.09.2015. By the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on from whose possession, the same were seized. The Proviso to Section 110(2) stipulates that the Commissioner of Customs, for sufficient cause being shown, is empowered to extend the said period by a further period, not exceeding six months. 6. In the present case, the goods were seized on 03.03.2015. As per the contention of the petitioner, the said period of six months would have expired on 02.09.2015. Show-cause notice dated 31.08.2015 was issued to the petitioner to show-cause as to why extension should not be granted for issuance of notice under section 124(a) of the Act. On 02.09.2015, a representative of the petitioner appeared before the Commissioner of Customs and stated that the petitioner had no role and according to it, no offence had been committed and prayed for speedy investigation. On 02.09.2015, by the order impugned in the present petition, the Commissioner of Customs has found it necessary to extend the period so that investigation could be completed properly. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Customs has extended the period for issuance of notice under section 124(a) for a further period of six months from 04.09.2015. 7. Paragraph 14 of the Judgment of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the extended period from 04.09.2015 as mentioned in the impugned order, we are of the view that the mere mentioning 'for a period of six months from 04.09.2015. would not invalidate the extension. The order records that the period has been extended by a period of six months, and since the extension would come into effect for six months on the expiry of the initial period, the mentioning of the date would not have any consequence in so far as the period of six months is concerned. 10. The proviso to Section 110(2) contemplates an extension of the initial period of six months and does not contemplate renewal or commencement of a fresh period of six months. Since it is an extension, that is contemplated, the same would commence from the expiry of the initial period. The extended period starts automatically with the expiry of the initial period unlike in a case of renewal, which may be from an entirely different date. 11. In this back drop, even if the contention were to be accepted that the period ended on 02.09.2015, the same would end with the end of 02.09.2015 i.e. on the midnight of 02.09.2015 and the extension of six months would have commenced with the beginning of 03. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b-section (2), however, the Collector could extend the period of six months on sufficient cause being shown. It was argued that the Customs Officers had seized the goods within the meaning of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 on 4-9-1964. The notice contemplated under Section 124(a) was given after 3-3-1965, that is, after the period of six months had expired. As per Section 110(2), notice contemplated under Section 124(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 had to be given within six months of the seizure of the goods, and, therefore, notice issued after the expiry of six months was bad in law and, hence, the Collector of Customs was not competent to extend the period of six months under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 110 as he had done. Therefore, no order confiscating the goods or imposing penalty could have been made and the goods had to be returned to the appellants. It was argued that Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 has no application because the words from and to found in Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 are not used in sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. This submission was rejected and Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. They read as under: (Vasantlal Ranchhoddas Patel case [Vasantlal Ranchhoddas Patel v. Union of India, AIR 1967 Bom 138], AIR p. 142, para 11) 11. '168' Exclusion of first day.-The general rule in cases in which a period is fixed within which a person must act or take the consequences is that the day of the act or event from which the period runs should not be counted against him. This general rule applies irrespective of whether the limitation of time is imposed by the act of a party or by statute; thus, where a period is fixed within which a criminal prosecution or a civil action may be commenced, the day on which the offence is committed or the cause of action arises is excluded in the computation'. 38. In the circumstances, it was held in Vasantlal Ranchhoddas Patel case [Vasantlal Ranchhoddas Patel v. Union of India, AIR 1967 Bom 138] that the day on which the goods were seized has to be excluded in computing the period of limitation contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 110 and therefore the notice was issued within the period of limitation. It is pertinent to note that under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, notice had to be given w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
