9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge to correctness of OIA No. 37/2003-Cus. regarding short levy of Anti-Dumping duty on CFL Lamps imported from Peoples Republic of China and Hong Kong. 2. Dispute over the service of Show Cause Notice within the statutory time limit of six months from the date of Bill of Entry. Analysis: 1. The appellants contested the correctness of OIA No. 37/2003-Cus., which imposed Anti-Dumping duty on CFL Lamps from China and Hong Kong. The issue was not the levy itself but the timing and validity of the Show Cause Notice. The Bill of Entry was filed on 28-12-2001, and the Notice was claimed to have been served in July 2002. However, the Commissioner presented evidence from the Despatch register showing the notice was dispatched on 17-5-2002 via Registered Post. The appellants failed to provide any proof of receiving the notice in July 2002, and it was argued that Registered Post typically takes 7 to 10 days for delivery, not two months as claimed by the appellants. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's findings that the Notice was served within the statutory six-month period, dismissing the appeal. 2. The central issue revolved around whether the Show Cause Notice was served within the prescribed six-month timeframe. The appellants alleged receiving the notice in July 2002, but without concrete evidence. In contrast, the Commissioner demonstrated through the Despatch Register that the notice was sent on 17-5-2002. The appellants did not contest this date. Given that Registered Post usually takes 7 to 10 days for delivery, the Tribunal concluded that the Notice was indeed served within May 2002, well within the six-month limit from the Bill of Entry date. The Commissioner's detailed findings on the timely service of the notice and the lack of time-bar on the demands were upheld, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
|
