2004 (12) TMI 615 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Extension of period for issue of show cause notice in respect of seized goods without proper procedure.
2. Requirement of show cause notice and hearing before extending the period for seized goods.
3. Applicability of legal judgments in similar cases.

Extension of Period for Issue of Show Cause Notice:
The case involved appeals against orders by the Commissioner of Central Excise extending the period for issuing show cause notices by six months for seized goods. The appellant argued that seized goods should be returned if the notice is not issued within six months or if the period is not extended properly. It was contended that the extension was done without issuing a show cause notice or hearing the concerned parties. Legal precedents, including judgments by the Apex Court and Delhi High Court, were cited to support this argument.

Requirement of Show Cause Notice and Hearing:
The learned DR suggested that a post-decisional hearing by the Commissioner would serve the ends of justice. Reference was made to a judgment by the Apex Court in the case of Menka Gandhi. The Tribunal examined the records and submissions, noting that the goods were seized due to improper accounting. Section 110(2) of the Customs Act was referred to, emphasizing that the extension of the period for seized goods should only occur after issuing a show cause notice and hearing the concerned parties. Failure to adhere to these requirements would necessitate the return of seized goods to the parties involved.

Applicability of Legal Judgments:
The Tribunal considered the judgments of the Apex Court and previous Tribunal orders, which established that the extension of the period for seized goods must follow the proper procedure of issuing show cause notices and conducting hearings. In cases where these requirements were not met, the seized goods should be returned to the respective parties. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Revenue to return the seized goods to the appellant without delay, in line with the legal principles and precedents discussed.

---