9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Extension of the period for issuance of show cause notice under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Compliance with the proviso to Section 110(2) regarding the extension of time. 3. Requirement of showing sufficient cause for extending the time period. 4. Interpretation of the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Tarsem Kumar v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh. Extension of the Period for Issuance of Show Cause Notice: The Customs authorities seized certain goods but failed to issue a show cause notice within the stipulated six months as per Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner of Customs sought to extend this period by issuing a show cause notice proposing the extension, which was done in all four cases. However, the orders extending the period were issued after the expiry of the initial six months from the date of seizure. Compliance with the Proviso to Section 110(2): The appellants argued that since the orders extending the six months' period were issued after the expiry of the initial period, they did not comply with the proviso to Section 110(2) of the Act. The appellants contended that the extension of time should only be granted upon showing sufficient cause, which they believed was lacking in these cases. Citing the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Tarsem Kumar v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, the appellants claimed that the right to reclaim seized goods arises if the extension is not granted before the expiry of the initial six months. Requirement of Showing Sufficient Cause: The appellants emphasized the necessity of demonstrating sufficient cause for extending the time period, as mandated by the proviso to Section 110(2). They argued that the absence of evident cause in these cases rendered the extensions invalid. The reliance on the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court further supported their contention that the failure to extend the period before its expiry entitles the owner to reclaim the seized goods. Interpretation of Punjab and Haryana High Court's Judgment: The Tribunal noted that the facts were undisputed, and the Departmental Representative could not provide any contradictory decision to the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Tarsem Kumar's case. Relying on the precedent set by the High Court, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned orders, issued after the expiry of the initial six months without a valid extension, were liable to be set aside. The Tribunal held that the right to claim the return of seized goods arises if the extension is not granted before the initial period lapses, in line with the interpretation of the High Court judgment. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders due to the failure to extend the period within the prescribed time frame, as per the proviso to Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment highlighted the significance of showing sufficient cause for extending the time period and affirmed the right of the appellants to reclaim the seized goods based on the interpretation of the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision in a similar case.
|
