9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 (said Act); (b) The order in original dated 22nd December, 2005 made by Commissioner of Customs (Imports) ordering deregistration of the contract and confirming the enforcement of the Bond of Rs. 26,29,250/executed in favour of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. (c) Letter dated 5th February, 2019 addressed by the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs (Imports) to IDBI Bank ordering the debit freeze to the Petitioners' current account towards realization of the dues as aforesaid. 3. Mr. Aseem Naphade, the learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners were neither served with the show cause notice nor the order in original dated 22nd December, 2005 made by the Dy. Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of notice and in the absence of such proof the Petitioners' case that there was no valid service is required to be accepted. He relies on (i) Prince International vs. Union of India, 2015 (325) E.L.T. 495 (Bom.); (ii) Suresh Bafna vs. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise and Ors., (2009) 234 ELT 606; (iii) Taranjeet Singh Mohan Singh Sawhney and Ors. vs. District Deputy Registrar Cooperative Socities and Ors., (2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 402. 5. Mr. Vijay Kantharia, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the Petitioners have not been candid to this Court in as much as the records indicate that service has been validly effected at the registered address of the Petitioners. He submits that it was the duty of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26,29,250/and bank guarantee of Rs. 1,31,462/subject to the Petitioners' fulfilling the terms and conditions as set out in the Project Import Regulations, 1986. 8. On 3rd November, 1997 the show cause notice was issued to the Petitioners on the basis that the Petitioners failed to submit reconciliation statement in terms of Clause VII of the Project Import Regulations, 1986 within the prescribed period as also failed to produce the document proved regarding the valuation and quality of goods imported. The show cause notice required the Petitioners to explain as to why the provisional registration of the contract should not be finalized by deregistering the contract and accessing the imported goods on merits under appropriate Customs T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al sent at the Tardeo address was also returned with the endorsement "not known". All this according to us indicates that there was valid compliance with provision of section 153 of the said Act. 11. Since it is the case of the Petitioners that the Petitioners' factory premises were closed since 2001 or that factory premises were in possession of the bank between year 2002 to 2007, the minimum that was expected from the Petitioners was that they intimate this circumstance to the Respondents. This was necessary because the Petitioners were very much aware that only provisional assessment had taken place in respect of imported goods which were ultimately released under Bond and final assessment was yet to be completed. The registered add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riginal was indeed sent to the Petitioners by registered post. To such situation, the presumption available under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 will apply. The Petitioners have placed no material on record to rebut such presumption. 14. In Harihar Banerji and Ors. vs. Ramshashi Roy and Ors., AIR 1918 Privy Council 102 it is held if a letter properly directed, is proved to have been put into the post office, it is presumed that the letter reached destination at the appropriate time according the regular course of business of the post office and received by the person to whom it was addressed. 15. In the precise context of the provision of section 153 of the said Act, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in B. Bhoormal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thorities about the shifting of the address and had even communicated the new address. The Petitioners in the present case never intimated the Respondents about the closure of the factory or shifting of the address. Accordingly, the decision in Suresh Bafna (supra) can be of no assistance. 18. Taranjeet Singh Sawhney (supra) also turns on its own peculiar facts in as much as there was sufficient material on record in the said case to conclude that the Appellant was not given appropriate intimation about the preponement of date of hearing. The issue in the present case is quite different. 19. Accordingly, in the facts of the present case, we see no good ground to interfere with the order in original or in that matter the impugned notice/co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
