2014 (5) TMI 241 - AT - Customs

Seizure of Gold - Extension of period for issuance of show-cause notice Whether former show-cause notice u/s 124 giving all the details was required in this case or not Held that - Impugned order is sustainable because there is no prejudice caused to the appellant by the impugned order - He is not the owner of the gold and the owner of the gold did not even cooperate with the investigation during the relevant period - On merits appellant has no case since he is not at all prejudiced by the impugned order and in any case he has been given an opportunity to attend the personal hearing. If there is no indication to show whether the appellant wanted more details and details given in the personal hearing notice was not sufficient - A decision to extend the show-cause notice has to be taken only in the last month i.e. 5th or 6th month since fact that show-cause notice cannot be issued within time would be known only by that time and time would not be available for issue of detailed show-cause notice, await reply and issue order - More so, issue order has to be passed before six months from seizure - Commissioner cannot be found fault with for issuing of combined notice of personal hearing giving the reasons for extension of show-cause notice issued therein so that the appellants can utilize the opportunity and explain their side of the story and if necessary get the detailed reasons given by the investigating officers and during personal hearing contest the same - Having regard to the facts and circumstances because of which the period for issue of notice was extended, the requirement of Section 124 and principles of natural justice can be considered as fulfilled Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Early hearing of appeal application
2. Seizure of gold from an individual
3. Extension of period for issue of show-cause notice
4. Requirement of show-cause notice
5. Opportunity for personal hearing

1. Early hearing of appeal application:
The appellant sought early hearing of the appeal due to the extended period for issue of show-cause notice. The Tribunal found justification for early hearing, and the appeal was taken up for final decision without objections from the Revenue.

2. Seizure of gold from an individual:
900 gms of gold was seized from an individual at a railway station. The individual stated that he was carrying the gold for handing over to another person, who was the Director of an SEZ unit. Revenue claimed that the gold was diverted from the SEZ import stock.

3. Extension of period for issue of show-cause notice:
The Commissioner extended the period for issue of show-cause notice by 6 months under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act 1962. The appeal was filed on the ground that the Commissioner should have issued a show-cause notice before passing the order.

4. Requirement of show-cause notice:
The appellant argued that the absence of a show-cause notice rendered the order unsustainable, citing previous cases where the issuance of a show-cause notice was deemed mandatory. The appellant contended that a personal hearing intimation did not suffice as a notice.

5. Opportunity for personal hearing:
The AR submitted that the investigation was hindered by the non-appearance of a key individual, leading to the extension of the show-cause notice period. It was argued that the personal hearing intimation provided an opportunity for the appellant to explain their case and contest the issue. The Tribunal found the order sustainable as no prejudice was caused to the appellant, and he was given an opportunity for a personal hearing.

The Tribunal rejected the appeal, stating that the appellant had not been prejudiced by the order, and the extension of the show-cause notice period was justified. The Commissioner's decision to extend the notice period was deemed reasonable, considering the circumstances. The Tribunal found that the requirement of the Customs Act and principles of natural justice were fulfilled. The appeal was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in open court.