9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1164 - AT - CustomsSeizure of goods - Confiscation - Section 110 (ii) of CA - SCN was waived by the appellant - adjudication order without issuing any SCN was passed on 10.01.2011 i.e. almost after 17 months - appellant submits that as per Section 110 (ii), in case of seizer of goods, the department is under obligation to issue SCN within 6 months and further period of 6 months as may be extended by the competent authority - HELD THAT - Though the appellant vide letter dated 11.11.2009 waived the SCN, as per statutory provision under section 110(ii), the Revenue was supposed to issue SCN within 6 months and further period of 6 months as may be extended by competent authority. Even though the appellant have waived SCN, atleast adjudicating authority should have adhered to time limit as prescribed in section 110(ii) and proceeding should have been concluded within 6 months or 1 year if it is extended. However, the adjudication order was passed after almost 17 months. Appeal allowed.
Issues:
1. Waiver of Show Cause Notice (SCN) by the appellant without issuance of SCN within the prescribed time frame. 2. Adjudication period exceeding the statutory limit of 6 months after the waiver of SCN. 3. Applicability of the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shivshakti Trading Company to the present case. Issue 1: Waiver of Show Cause Notice (SCN) The appellant filed 2 shipping bills for export of de-oiled mustard/rape seed oil under the VKGUY scheme. The Customs Officer alleged misdeclaration and attempted benefit under the VKGUY scheme. The appellant waived the SCN, leading to the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties. The waiver raised concerns about the obligation to issue an SCN within the prescribed time frame as per Section 110(ii) of the Customs Act. Issue 2: Adjudication Period The appellant argued that despite waiving the SCN, the adjudication process should have been concluded within 6 months as per statutory provisions. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court's judgment in the case of Shivshakti Trading Company emphasized the importance of completing adjudication within a reasonable period, irrespective of the SCN waiver. The delay in passing the adjudication order after 17 months was deemed in violation of the statutory time limits, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order. Issue 3: Applicability of Previous Judgment The Revenue contended that the judgment of Shivshakti Trading Company was not directly applicable as the goods in the present case had been released provisionally. However, the Tribunal held that the core issue of completing adjudication within a reasonable period, as highlighted in the Delhi High Court's judgment, was paramount. The provisional release of goods did not alter the necessity of adhering to the statutory time limits for adjudication, leading to the allowance of the appeal based on the precedent set by the Delhi High Court. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of completing adjudication within the statutory time frame even in cases where the SCN is waived. The judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Shivshakti Trading Company served as a guiding precedent in ensuring timely and fair adjudication processes.
|
