2007 (3) TMI 448 - AT - Customs

Stay of order - Show cause notice, extension of time - Interpretation of statutes - Confiscation

Summary

Issues:
Application for staying operation of impugned order of Commissioner under Section 110(2) of Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 12 of Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The case involved an application seeking to stay the operation of an order issued by the Commissioner under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, in connection with the extension of the period for issuing a show cause notice regarding certain seized goods. The applicant, engaged in the manufacture and export of Menthol Crystal, faced allegations of irregular availment of Cenvat credit and storing finished goods without proper records. The seized goods were provisionally released upon furnishing security. The investigation was hindered by the failure to provide necessary documents, leading to the extension of the show cause notice period by the Commissioner.

The applicant contended that since the investigation primarily focused on irregular Cenvat credit and the seized goods had already been released, there was no need to extend the show cause notice period. However, the Tribunal noted that under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, if a show cause notice is not issued within six months from seizure, goods must be returned unless the Commissioner extends the period. The Tribunal clarified that the absence of a show cause notice period does not prevent confiscation proceedings under Section 124. Given the grounds for extending the notice period, including incomplete investigation due to lack of documents, the Tribunal found no basis to stay the Commissioner's order and rejected the application for stay.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to extend the show cause notice period, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive investigation and the authority to extend timelines in cases involving irregularities. The Tribunal highlighted that the absence of a specific notice period did not preclude confiscation proceedings, and the extension was justified based on the circumstances of the case. Consequently, the application for stay was dismissed, affirming the Commissioner's order.