2011 (3) TMI 791 - AT - Customs

Seized currency - The appellants are submitting that the currency seized does not belong to them - It appears that nobody has come forward to claim the currency - The ownership of the currency and source of currency were matters for investigation - Both sides agree that the investigation has since been completed and show cause notice issued inter alia proposing confiscation of impugned currency has since been issued - do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the commissioner which merely extended the period for issue of show cause notice in respect of seized currency for a further period of six months beyond 15.1.09 - Thus merely to consider the limited issue as to whether there was justification for extending the period prescribed for issue of show cause notice. We uphold the decision to extend the time limit.

Summary

Issues:
1. Extension of time for issue of show cause notice under Section 110(2) of Customs Act, 1962.
2. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Central Excise.
3. Ownership of seized currency and its connection to the appellant company.
4. Validity of the extension order without affording opportunity to concerned persons.
5. Non-cooperation of the appellant company in the investigation.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The appeal challenged the order of the Commissioner extending the time for issuing a show cause notice under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued that the notice should have been issued to the persons from whose residence the currency was seized, not to the appellant company. The Commissioner's decision to extend the time limit was based on the investigation's non-completion within the initial six months due to non-cooperation.

Issue 2: The appellant contested the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida, claiming that the Commissioner of New Delhi had jurisdiction. However, the Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had the authority to extend the time limit for issuing the show cause notice under Section 110(2).

Issue 3: The ownership of the seized currency and its connection to the appellant company were disputed. While the appellant denied ownership, no other individuals claimed the currency. The Tribunal emphasized that the ownership and source of the currency were subjects of investigation and subsequent adjudication proceedings.

Issue 4: The appellant argued that the extension order was invalid as it was issued without affording an opportunity to the concerned persons. However, the Tribunal distinguished this case from precedent, stating that the Commissioner had merely extended the time for issuing the show cause notice, which was within the legal framework.

Issue 5: The non-cooperation of the appellant company in the investigation was highlighted as a reason for the delay in completing the investigation within the initial six months. The Tribunal acknowledged this factor as a contributing element to the extension of the time limit for issuing the show cause notice.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to extend the time limit for issuing the show cause notice. The appeal was dismissed, allowing the parties to present further submissions on other issues during adjudication.