TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period of five years - Thus, even if it is accepted that the limitation period under Section 28 of the Customs Act cannot per se be imputed to any action under Section 28B of the Customs Act, there can be no cavil that action should be taken within a reasonable period. In this case, it is apparent that the learned CESTAT found that the period of five years, which is the prescribed period of limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act, would be a reasonable period. The 39 Bills of Entries were filed during the period of August, 1996 to January, 2004. The Show Cause Notice dated 06.03.2013, has been issued approximately nine years after the last Bill of Entry. In the given facts, we are unable to accept that the appellant had issued th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the appellants. In terms of the first Show Cause Notice dated 08.07.2011, the respondents had demanded a sum of ₹21,05,024/-. This demand is related to six Bills of Entries which were filed during the period of 11.07.2006 to 28.06.2008. There is no dispute that the respondent had imported the goods without payment of customs duty and had also recovered the duty from OEF, Kanpur. The learned CESTAT had accordingly upheld the demand of customs duty, amounting to ₹21,05,024/- along with interest under Sections 28AB and 28AA of the Customs Act. In addition, the learned CESTAT had also upheld the levy of penalty equal to the customs duty levied under Section 114(A) of the Customs Act. 5. The respondents appealed against the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Notice dated 06.03.2013 and had passed an order on 10.07.2015. The respondent had filed an appeal against the said order before the learned CESTAT which was disposed of by the impugned order. 10. The learned CESTAT had found that the demand raised was beyond the period of limitation. It has observed that although no time limit had been prescribed under Sections 28B of the Customs Act; the time limit as prescribed under Section 28 of the Customs Act could be considered for the said purpose. The learned CESTAT had referred to the decisions in, Gem Cables Conductors Ltd. v. CC Hyderabad; 1994 (72) ELT 848 (Mad.); Tamilnadu Asbestos (pipes) v. CCE Trichy 2009 (238) ELT 473 (Tri-Chennai); and Siddeshwar SSK Ltd. v. CCE Aurangabad 1997 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, in our opinion, should ordinarily be exercised within a period of three years having regard to the purport in terms of the said Act. In any event, the same should not exceed the period of five years. The view of the High Court, thus, cannot be said to be unreasonable. Reasonable period, keeping in view the discussions made hereinbefore, must be found out from the statutory scheme. As indicated hereinbefore, maximum period of limitation provided for in sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act is five years. 15. It is relevant to note that the period of limitation as provided under Section 28 of the Customs Act is a period of five years from the relevant date. It is, thus, apparent that the learned CESTAT had proceeded on the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
