TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 789X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods is ordered under Section 110A of the Act, then the specified period of six months, as indicated in Section 110 (2) of the Act, would not apply. This is only to make sure that at least there is a provisional release of the seized goods as quickly as possible. In the present case, a valuable right might have accrued to the Petitioner for unconditional release of the goods if no provisional release order had been passed before the expiry of six months from the date of seizure of the goods. In such event, the Petitioner could have argued that the valuable right accrued to the Petitioner cannot be taken away by passing a provisional release order beyond the period of six months from the seizure of the goods - the second proviso did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Customs Appeals No. 51405 I 2018- DB 2. As far as prayer (b) is concerned, on the very first date when this writ petition was listed i.e. 1st August, 2018, the following order was passed: Issue notice. Sh. Amit Bansal, Advocate accepts notice. List on 17.09.2018. In the meanwhile, having regard to the CESTAT's order dated 02.07.2018, subject to verifying that the conditions imposed for provisional release are complied with, the respondents are directed to ensure that the goods are released provisionally within a week. 3. It is an admitted position that pursuant to the above order the goods in question have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel for the Respondent, drew attention of the court to the second proviso of Section 110(2) of the Act inserted by the Finance Act, 2018 with effect from 29th March, 2018. 6. At the outset it requires to be noticed that there are two significant amendments that have been made to Section 110 of the Act with effect from 28th March 2018 by the Finance Act, 2018. The wording of first proviso to Section 110(2) of the Act has been changed and the second proviso, which did not exist earlier, has been inserted. To better understand the change is depicted in the tabular form:- Section 110 (2) before amendment 110(2) after amendment Where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. The contention of Mr. Singh is that since the provisional release order has been passed before the expiry of six months from the date of seizure, the second proviso would apply and if it does, then the need for issuing an SCN within a period of six months from the date of seizure will not apply. He accordingly contends that in terms of the second proviso, the Petitioner cannot insist on unconditional release of the goods. 9. In response to the above contention, Ms. Manish learned counsel for the Petitioner refers to the statement of the Finance Minister while tabling the above amendment in Parliament which reads as under: 163. I also propose to make certain changes to the Customs Act, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he initial period of six months for issuance of an SCN includes hearing the person affected. No such question arises in the present case. The Department is relying entirely on the second proviso to contend that the specified period of six months did not apply at all in the present case. It must be noted at this stage that an SCN was subsequently issued to the Petitioner on 11th April, 2019 and those adjudication proceedings pursuant thereto are in progress. 12. It appears to the Court that the legislative intent was to ensure that the person whose goods are seized is not left in a state of uncertainty, with neither the goods being released nor an SCN being issued despite six months having elapsed since the date of seizure. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
