9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 14 - HC - CustomsValidity of SCN - delivery of notices beyond the time limitation - short collection of duty due to non-levy of anti-dumping duty - whether the show cause notices dated 06.11.2000 and 08.02.2001 for short collection of duty due to non-levy of anti-dumping duty, in respect to two bill of entries bearing nos.12032 and 25633 dated 04.05.2000 and 28.08.2000 respectively, issued by the fourth respondent in terms of section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, are barred by limitation? HELD THAT - In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the date of payment of duty and the date of expiry of limitation in respect of the aforesaid two bill of entries. It is also not in dispute that the notices under section 28(1) of the Act were issued/despatched within the limitation period. What was disputed is that the delivery of notices to the petitioner, was beyond the period of limitation. On a perusal of the documents enclosed in the typed set of papers, it could be seen that the notice dated 06.11.2000 in respect of bill of entry no.12032 dated 04.05.2000, was sent to the wrong address of the petitioner, but it was delivered to them, on 10.11.2000 i.e., one day after the expiry of the limitation period and hence, the service of notice on the petitioner was completed. Similarly, in respect of bill of entry no.25633 dated 28.08.2000, the notice was initially issued on 13.02.2001 and the same was returned on 28.02.2001 as the party was not in station, which is well within the limitation period and the same fact was also fairly conceded by the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner was called to appear in person before the customs authorities and the notice was served on them by hand on 03.04.2001. In such circumstances, the service of notice effected on the petitioner at the first instance itself, would be deemed to be completed service and hence, the question of affixing the notice in the notice board of the customs house, will not arise. Therefore, this court is of the view that if the date of despatch of notices is taken into consideration, the notices served on the petitioner are within the period of limitation. This court is of the opinion that the notices issued by the fourth respondent are not hit by limitation. Thus, there is no reason to interfere with the findings so rendered by the CESTAT. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the show cause notices for non-levy of anti-dumping duty were barred by limitation. 2. The mode and timing of service of notices under Section 28(1) and Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Interpretation of the term "serve" in the context of the Customs Act. 4. Applicability of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 in the context of service of notices. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the show cause notices for non-levy of anti-dumping duty were barred by limitation: The petitioner argued that the show cause notices were served beyond the statutory time limit of six months from the date of payment of duty, as stipulated under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner contended that the notices were received after the expiry of the limitation period, making them barred by limitation. The respondents countered that the notices were dispatched within the limitation period, and as per Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, the service is deemed to be effected at the time of dispatch. 2. The mode and timing of service of notices under Section 28(1) and Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962: The court examined Sections 28 and 153 of the Customs Act. Section 28 deals with the recovery of duties not levied or short-levied, requiring notice to be served within six months. Section 153 outlines the modes of service, including registered post, and deems service complete when the notice is dispatched. The court noted that the notices were dispatched within the limitation period, thus complying with the statutory requirements. 3. Interpretation of the term "serve" in the context of the Customs Act: The petitioner argued that "serve" should mean actual delivery to the recipient. The court, however, referred to Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, which equates "serve" with "give" or "send," and deems service complete upon dispatch by registered post. The court held that dispatch within the limitation period suffices for compliance with Section 28. 4. Applicability of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 in the context of service of notices: The court relied on Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, which states that service by post is deemed effective upon proper addressing, prepaying, and posting by registered post. The court found that the notices were dispatched within the limitation period, and the delay in actual receipt by the petitioner did not affect the validity of the service. Judgment: The court upheld the findings of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) that the show cause notices were issued within the limitation period. The court dismissed the writ petitions, affirming that the dispatch date is the relevant date for determining compliance with the limitation period under Section 28 of the Customs Act. The court emphasized the doctrine of substantial compliance, noting that the statutory requirements were met by dispatching the notices within the prescribed time frame. The court concluded that the notices were not barred by limitation, and the demands for anti-dumping duty were valid.
|
