9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (9) TMI 112 - HC - CustomsSCN search and seizure alleged that SCN given to the petitioner beyond the period of six months Held that - Show cause notice must be given before expiry of six months and issuance of notice by registered post within six months is a sufficient compliance in the eye of law, moreso, when the same has been received by the respondent as has been admitted - Neither Section 110(2) nor Clause (a) of Section 124 of the Act contemplates service of notice in strict sense within a period of six months from the date of giving/issuing the same by registered post which mode has been prescribed under the Act. It merely speaks about giving of the notice - it cannot be said that the legislature intended to achieve service of notice within six months from the date of seizure - appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the show cause notice under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Interpretation of the term "given" in Section 110(2) and Section 124(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Compliance with statutory requirements for issuing a show cause notice. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Show Cause Notice: The writ appeal challenges the order dated 15th November 2000, which quashed the show cause notice dated 29-9-1989 issued by the Collector, Customs & Central Excise, Indore. The petitioner-respondent argued that the show cause notice was given beyond the statutory period of six months as prescribed in Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The learned Single Judge held that the respondents-appellants failed to establish that the show cause notice was sent in conformity with the statutory requirement contained in Section 153(a) read with Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, thus vitiating the notice. 2. Interpretation of the Term "Given": The appellants contended that the notice under Clause (a) of Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 was duly given within six months of the seizure of the goods. They argued that the word "given" should not be construed as "served." The respondent, however, relied on the Supreme Court decision in K. Narasimhiah v. H.C. Singri Gowda and Others, which interpreted "giving" as complete only upon service on the addressee. The court noted that the word "given" in Section 110(2) cannot be construed as "served," else the legislature would have used the word "served." The court emphasized that the purpose of the provision is to ensure the notice is issued within six months to apprise the person of the grounds for confiscation or penalty, not necessarily to ensure service within that period. 3. Compliance with Statutory Requirements: The court examined the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962: - Section 110(2): If no notice is given within six months of the seizure, the goods must be returned to the person from whom they were seized. - Section 124(a): Requires a written notice informing the person of the grounds for confiscation or penalty. - Section 153: Prescribes the mode of serving notices, including personal delivery or registered post. The court concluded that the issuance of a notice by registered post within six months is sufficient compliance with Section 110(2), even if the notice is received after six months. The court referred to the Division Bench decisions of the High Courts of Calcutta and Punjab & Haryana, which supported the interpretation that sending the notice by registered post within the stipulated period fulfills the requirement of "giving" the notice. Conclusion: The court found that the learned Single Judge erred in interpreting the provisions and ignoring the significance of the word "given." The issuance of the show cause notice by registered post within six months was deemed sufficient compliance. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. Result: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order quashing the show cause notice was set aside with no order as to costs.
|
