2018 (1) TMI 1679 - HC - Customs

Service of notice - time limitation - legality of action of the Customs Authorities in proceeding with hearing for extension of time, for which notice was not received by the writ petitioner within time - HELD THAT - There are no reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. There is no material produced on the basis of which, a conclusion can be reached, that the noticee had indulged any evasive tactics which would justify post-decisional hearing. No other cogent reason has been cited for which the notice was not sent within time. There are no reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Delay in filing the appeal, legality of action by Customs Authorities, necessity of notice in extension of time for show-cause notice issuance.

Analysis:
1. Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The appellant sought condonation of a 40-day delay in filing the appeal. The Court, after reviewing the application, found sufficient cause for the delay and thus condoned it. The appeal and the application were taken up together for hearing, with the respondent's counsel waiving the service of notice of appeal. The formalities were dispensed with to expedite the appeal process.

2. Legality of Action by Customs Authorities:
The case involved the detention of the respondent-writ petitioner and the seizure of three pieces of gold from his possession. The respondent challenged the action of Customs Authorities in proceeding with a hearing for the extension of time, citing that the notice for the hearing was not received within the stipulated time. The First Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs and requesting a fresh notice to be issued for further hearing.

3. Necessity of Notice in Extension of Time for Show-Cause Notice Issuance:
The Customs Authorities contested the necessity of providing notice for the extension of time for issuing a show-cause notice. The appellant's counsel argued that such notice was not a legal requirement and that sustaining the judgment under appeal would lead to the collapse of the seizure exercise. However, the respondent's counsel relied on a Supreme Court judgment to assert that notice to the person from whom goods were seized is a legal necessity. The Court upheld the judgment under appeal, emphasizing the importance of providing notice and an opportunity to be heard before extending the original period for issuing a show-cause notice.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal and the stay petition, maintaining the judgment that required a fresh notice to be issued for further hearing, highlighting the legal necessity of providing notice in extension of time for issuing show-cause notices.