9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that under Section 110(2) the Commissioner has power to extend the time limit for issuance of SCN, hence he legally exercised the power, therefore, the order passing extension of time limit is legal and correct. He placed reliance on the following judgments: * Suresh Gangaram Hole 2010 (327) ELT 555 (Tri. Mumbai) * Suresh Gangaram Hole 2018 (362) ELT 210 (Bom.) * Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs Akansha Sytex 2017 (354) ELT A111 (SC) 4. Heard both the sides and perused the records. I find that the very same issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of Rajkamal Industries (P) Ltd. (Supra). The relevant order portion is reproduced below: "4. Heard both the sides and perused the records. We find that the issue has to be decided by us is that whether the Commissioner is required to issue notice to the importer proposing extension of time limit for issuance of SCN or he may extend the time limit without putting the importer to the notice in this regard. We find that on the identical issue for the prior period to the amendment in Section 110 i.e. before 29.03.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the right which is created under sub-section (2) of Section 110 in favour of the person from whom the goods have been seized. If no notice under Section 124 is issued within a period of six months from the date of the seizure, the persons from whom goods are seized is entitled to return of goods as a matter of right. Therefore, we do not agree with the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant that as show cause notice was issued after completing investigation within the extended time, the Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was rendered infructuous. Even if the Appellate Authority has found that no grounds existed for extension of time, the notice issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act remains unaffected. Even that is the finding recorded by the Appellate Tribunal in the impugned judgment and order and in particular in paragraph 7 thereof. 14. We, therefore, find that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal. In any event, no substantial question of law arises much less a question of law. 15. Accordingly, we find no merit in the Appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending Notice of Motion does not survive a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 period to a further period not exceeding six months and inform the person from whom such goods were seized before the expiry of the period so specified. In this context, we also refer to paragraph "163"of FM speech regarding the need for amendment under the Customs Act which is reproduced as under: " I also propose to make certain change to the Customs Act, 1962 to further im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 for "on sufficient cause being shown has been replaced with reasons to be recorded in writing extends such period", for a period not exceeding six months and inform the person from whom such goods were seized before expiry of the said period. Careful analysis of the provision makes it clear that the right of issuance of the Show Cause Notice for the extension of the period of six months a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 cases of extension at hand. 15. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders and allow appeals with consequential relief as per law." 7. In view of above, we are of the view that 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." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
