9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1135 - AT - CustomsJurisdiction - seizure of goods - extension of time u/s 110(2) for issuing Show Cause Notice (SCN) - no notice for personal hearing has been issued before extension of time u/s 11(2) - Principle of natural justice - import of Crystallized Glass Panel B Grade - mis-declaration / undervaluation of goods. HELD THAT - Seen in the context of these facts it is apparent that a textual reading of Section 110(2) would lead one to conclude that no separate notice is necessary before extending the period of limitation by a further six months (for issuance of show cause notice); the authority has to record reasons in writing which of course should be based on materials and inform the concerned party about the extension before the expiry of the first period of six months. The decision of Ahmedabad Bench in the case of M/S GASTRADE INTERNATIONAL VERSUS C.C. -KANDLA 2019 (6) TMI 170 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD relied upon where it was held that there is no legal authority with the department for dispensing with the issuance of SCN to the appellant therefore the impugned order passed without issuance of any SCN will not sustain. The decision was essentially based on the Delhi Bench of Tribunal decision in the case of M/S SWEES GEMS JEWELLERY M/S AARADHYA IMPEX VERSUS CGST CE JAIPUR-I 2019 (2) TMI 1375 - CESTAT NEW DELHI which has been upset by the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) JODHPUR VERSUS SWEES GEMS AND JEWELLERY AARADHYA IMPEX 2019 (7) TMI 1433 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT - Rajasthan High Court has held that the CESTAT fell into error in holding that goods had to be released in the circumstances of the case since no notice preceded extension of detention under Proviso to Section 110(2) of the Customs Act 1962 Thus the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gastrade International is no longer a valid precedence on this issue. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the extension of the time limit for issuance of a show cause notice under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Requirement of personal hearing before extending the time limit for issuance of a show cause notice. 3. Impact of amendments to Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 by the Finance Act, 2018. 4. Applicability of precedents set by the Supreme Court and High Courts regarding the extension of the time limit for issuance of a show cause notice. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Extension of the Time Limit for Issuance of a Show Cause Notice: The primary issue in this case was whether the Commissioner of Customs could extend the time limit for issuing a show cause notice under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 without issuing a notice and without granting a hearing to the appellant. The appellant argued that the extension was done without issuing a show cause notice and without giving an opportunity to be heard, which was against the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in various judgments. 2. Requirement of Personal Hearing Before Extending the Time Limit: The appellant contended that the Commissioner should have provided a personal hearing before extending the time limit for issuing a show cause notice. They relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in I.J. Rao, Assistant Collector of Customs vs. Bibhuti Bhushan Bagh and Harbans Lal vs. Collector of Customs, which emphasized the necessity of a personal hearing before such an extension. 3. Impact of Amendments to Section 110(2) by the Finance Act, 2018: The Tribunal examined the amendments to Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, brought by the Finance Act, 2018. The amended provision allows the Commissioner to extend the period for issuing a show cause notice by recording reasons in writing and informing the person from whom the goods were seized before the expiry of the initial six-month period. The Tribunal noted that the amended provision does not require a personal hearing before extending the time limit. 4. Applicability of Precedents Set by the Supreme Court and High Courts: The Tribunal observed that the decisions relied upon by the appellant pertained to the unamended Section 110(2). The Tribunal referred to the Rajasthan High Court's judgment in CC (Preventive) Jodhpur vs. Swees Gems and Jewellery, which held that the amended provision does not necessitate a personal hearing before extending the time limit. The Tribunal also noted that the decision of the Delhi Bench in the case of Swees Gems and Jewellery, which was relied upon by the appellant, had been set aside by the Rajasthan High Court. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the arguments raised by the appellant had been duly considered and answered by the Rajasthan High Court. The Tribunal relied on the Rajasthan High Court's judgment, which clarified that under the amended Section 110(2), the Commissioner only needs to record reasons in writing and inform the concerned party before extending the time limit for issuing a show cause notice. The Tribunal concluded that the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Gastrade International, which was based on the Delhi Bench's decision in Swees Gems and Jewellery, was no longer a valid precedent. (Order pronounced in the open court on 24.02.2020)
|
