2010 (7) TMI 861 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the demand notice issued to the appellant was within the period of limitation.
2. Whether the service of notice through registered post satisfied the provisions of the Customs Act.
3. Whether the appellant's contention that the notice was not received before the limitation period is valid.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant contested the demand on the grounds of limitation, claiming that the notice issued on 9-11-93 was not received by them before the expiration of the limitation period on 14-11-93. The Deputy Commissioner held that the notice was within the limitation period, as it was sent by registered post to both the appellant and their clearing agent. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. The appellant's argument was based on the absence of evidence showing the notice was received before 14-11-93.

Issue 2:
The Revenue argued that the notice sent by registered post on 9-11-93 satisfied the provisions of Section 153 of the Customs Act, which governs the service of notices. They contended that service to the clearing agent also constituted service to the appellant. The Deputy Commissioner's order cited relevant legal provisions and previous cases to support the conclusion that the notice was served properly, regardless of the actual receipt date.

Issue 3:
The appellant presented a certificate from postal authorities indicating the typical delivery time for registered letters. However, they failed to provide concrete evidence of the actual receipt date of the notice. The inward register maintained by the appellant did not specify the date of receipt, and a letter from the appellant acknowledged the receipt of the notice without mentioning the actual date. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence supporting the appellant's claim that the notice was received after 14-11-93.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's argument regarding the limitation period. As the appellant did not contest the demand on its merits, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal was rejected. The judgment emphasized the importance of proper service of notices under the Customs Act and the burden of proof on the appellant to demonstrate non-receipt within the limitation period.