9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Notice of demand under Section 28(1) of Customs Act, 1962 not served within the prescribed period of six months.
Summary: The appeal centered around whether a notice of demand under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act was served within the stipulated six-month period. The appellants argued that receiving the notice was crucial, not just its issuance, citing legal precedents. They contended that the notice was served after the expiry of the prescribed period, rendering the proceedings illegal. The Departmental Representative claimed the notice was dispatched in time. The Tribunal analyzed Section 28(1) and relevant case law, noting the appellants' evidence of receiving the notice on 18th August, 1986. As the notice was served after the six-month period, the proceedings initiated were deemed unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and lower authorities' orders were set aside. In a separate assenting opinion, it was highlighted that the demand notice should have been served within six months, but the notice issued on 11-8-1986 via Registered Post was received by the appellants on 18-8-1986, beyond the prescribed timeline. Notably, considering the appellants' location in Bangalore, the notice could not have reached them by the deadline of 13-8-1986 as per the Customs Act, 1962.
|
