TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Investigation Officer and also taking view of the affected party from whom seizure has been made as his personal right is being deprived of which emanate from the Section 110(1) of the Act that entitled him to got the goods returned which has been seized from his possession. The impugned order is not sustainable and the same are being set aside with consequential benefit, as per law, which includes the return of imported goods to the person from whom the seizure have been made. - Appeal No. C/53512-53513/2018-Cus.(DB) - Final Order No. 50283-50284/2019 - Dated:- 21-2-2019 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical) Sh. Arun Goyal, Advocate - for the appellant Shri Rakesh Kumar, DR - for the respondent ORDER Per: Bijay kumar : All these appeals have been filed by the appellant on an identical issue and, therefore, being disposed of by this common order. The details of the adjudication order are as under : S.No. Bill of Entry Name of Importer Date of detention/seizure 1. 6045058 6046267 dated 19.4.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the post decisional hearing by the Collector but only in such cases where service of notices evaded. This has not been the case with the appellants. Further even after the impugned order of extension the time limit for issue of Show Cause Notice was passed appellants have not been granted even post decisional hearing although the request for the same was made in the writing by them. 4.2 He also relied upon the decision of Harbans Lal Vs. Collector of Customs - 1993 (67) ELT 20, wherein it is held that by extending the time limit under Section 110(2) of Customs Act, owner of seized goods is entitled to notice because the seized goods on the expiry of six months are required to be returned to him and if that period was to be extended, he has vested right to be heard. It was also impressed upon that in case of Assistant Collector of Customs Superintendent, Preventive Service Customs, Calcutta Others Vs. Charan Das Malhotra - 1983 (13) ELT 1477 (SC), wherein it is held that extension of period for retention of seized goods cannot be permitted without sufficient cause and without opportunity of being heard to the person from whose possession goods are seized 4.3 Ld. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nable ground by the Commissioner/adjudicating authority. To resolve the controversy, it will be appropriate to refer the Section 110(2) before the amendment and also after the amendment vide Finance Act, 2018. The same is reproduced as under : Section 110(2) before Section 110(2) after Where any goods are seized under sub-section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of Section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized: Provided that the aforesaid period of six months may, on sufficient cause being shown , be extended by the [Commissioner of Customs] for a period not exceeding six months Where any goods are seized under sub-section (1) and no (2) notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of Section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. [Provided that the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the requirement for extension of time period as per sub proviso 2 of Section 110. Question as to whether the person claiming restoration of the goods under Section 110 of Act is entitled to notice before time is extending, this flows from the circumstances that this is a quasi judicial proceeding, and also it goes beyond the doubt that rights of a person are likely to prejudicially affected, he is entitled to opportunity to put forwarded his case before the Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, the person from whom the goods have been seized, is entitled to notice of the proposal before Adjudicating Authority for the extension of original period of the six months under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act subject to the restriction that he is not entitled to the information about the investigation which is in possession of the Investigating Agency as there can be no right in any person to be informed whose goods during the investigation material collected against him and there is no need for maintaining the investigation proceedings. This view has been affirmed in the I G Rao case referred (supra). The provisions of Section 110(2) before and after the amendment is as identical but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have also considered the submission made by Ld. Advocate that the aforesaid amendment has been brought with effect from 18/3/2018. Obviously, the amendment will not have its application from the retrospective date. The amendment has not been made with retrospective effect as is evident from the Finance Act, 2018. We also find that in case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-1), New Delhi vs. Vatika Township) [(2014) 0 SCC 670], Hon ble Supreme Court has held that law enacted in absence of a provision in the statue about the same being with of retrospective effect in the Clause of Finance Act, the amendment will have prospective effect only. In view of that also we find that the impugned order is not sustainable as the new amended provision has been applied for the seizure made during period when the amendment was not there in the statue. 14. In view of above our analysis as above, we are of the considered opinion that there is no legality for dispensing with the Show Cause Notices to the affected party even under the amended provisions of Section 110(2) of the Act. The Adjudicating Authority has erroneously held that this is no need of issue of Show Cause Notice in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
