9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 797 - HC - CustomsExtended period of limitation - relevant date - Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the demand notice dated 1.12.2000 was time barred - the said notice was in time in pursuance of the provisions of Sections 28 and 153 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Sections 8, 9 and 27 of the General Clauses Act - Held that - The six months period of limitation has to be calculated from the relevant date. - The relevant date is defined in Section 28(3) of the Customs Act as the date on which the proper officer makes an order for the clearance of the goods or in any other case the date of payment of duty or interest. Given the fact that the payment of duty on the above bill of entry was on 1.6.2000 and going by Section 28 of the Customs Act, the six months time for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction under Section 28 has to be counted from the date of payment of duty i.e. on 1.6.2000. - Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the proceedings initiated by the adjudicating authority was time barred. When the Revenue had accepted the two other bills of entry we fail to understand the logic in challenging the order of the Tribunal in respect of one bill of entry which was the subject matter in one of the appeals before the Tribunal court relied AMBALI KARTHIKEYAN v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE (1970 (10) TMI 29 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA) wherein it was decided that the notice was served within time limit - similar contention taken in respect of other two bills of entry were not under challenge before the Court appeal decided against the revenue.
Issues:
1. Whether the demand notice dated 1.12.2000 is time-barred under the Customs Act and General Clauses Act? 2. Validity of service of notice on the importer within the limitation period of six months as per the Customs Act. 3. Interpretation of Sections 28 and 153 of the Customs Act regarding the period of limitation for initiating actions. Analysis: 1. The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against an order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning the timeliness of a demand notice dated 1.12.2000. The Tribunal held the demand notice as time-barred as it was served beyond the six-month period from the relevant date of payment of duty. The Tribunal also rejected the reliance on Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, emphasizing the six-month limitation under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal concluded that the proceedings were time-barred, allowing the importer's appeals and dismissing the Revenue's contentions. 2. The importer contended that the demand for anti-dumping duty was beyond the six-month limitation period from the dates of payment of customs duties on the imported goods. The issue of service of notice on the importer within the limitation period was crucial. The Tribunal found that the notice served on the importer was beyond the six-month period, rendering the demand time-barred. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of Sections 28 and 153 of the Customs Act, which defined the period of limitation and the mode of service of notices. 3. The Revenue challenged the Tribunal's decision regarding the bill of entry dated 26.5.2000, arguing that the notice served on the importer on 2.12.2000 was within the period of limitation based on Section 153 of the Customs Act. However, the Court emphasized the provisions of Section 28, which specified the six-month limitation period for initiating actions under the Customs Act. The Court clarified that the relevant date for calculating the limitation period was the date of payment of duty. As the notice was served after the expiry of the time limit, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the proceedings were time-barred. The Court rejected the Revenue's reliance on the Kerala High Court decision and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing consistency in handling similar cases. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions regarding the period of limitation under the Customs Act. The judgment highlighted the significance of timely service of notices and the calculation of limitation periods based on the relevant dates specified in the law.
|
