9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (1) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities with the remark N.P. 15-12-1982, 16-12-1982 and out of station deposited for 7 days on 17-12-1982 and" enquired about the addressee as per the address. It was told that he has not returned and it is not known when he will be returning. Hence returned to the sender on 28-12-1982." Thus the said registered cover was received back as undelivered on 30-12-1982. Thereupon on 31-12-1982, the show-cause notice was sent to the Superintendent, Central Excise, Raigarh, for personal service on the respondent, which was served on 7-1-1983. After the usual enquiry, the adjudicating authority vide his Adjudication order No. VIII (Cus.) 10-5/82/Adj/12623-28 dated 17-9-1983 absolutely confiscated the seized contraband goods including cash and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the respondent. Against this order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, which was allowed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) vide his Order-in-Appeal. 3. Before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), the respondent urged many points, but the learned Collector of Customs (Appeals) instead of deciding the appeal on merits allowed the appeal on the prel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Collector of Customs; and (c) where the value of the goods liable to confiscation does not exceed two thousand five hundred rupees, by a gazetted officer of Customs lower in rank than an Assistant Collector of Customs." 8. Section 153 of the Customs Act provides :- Any order or decision passed or any summons or notice issued under this Act, shall be served- (a) by tendering the order, decision, summons or notice or sending it by registered post to the person for whom it is intended or to his agent; or (b) if the order, decision, summons or notice cannot be served in the manner provided in clause (a), by affixing it on the notice board of the Customs house." 9. On the strength of the aforesaid provisions, the question that arises as to when the notice contemplated by Section. 110(2) of the Customs Act can be said to have been given as the appellant contends; when it is issued and reaches the person concerned or when can it be said to have been given until when it is actually received by the person concerned, as the respondent contends. In other words, the contention is whether the words given a notice used in Section 110(2) of the Customs Act should be construed as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t help him at all. On the contrary, it helps the appellant. It may also further be added that in the case of K. Narasimhiah v. Singri Gowda and Others (supra) admittedly the notices of requisite three days of calling a meeting on 14-10-1963 as contemplated by the provisions of the Mysore Town Municipalities Act, 1951, were sent on 10th October but they were actually served on the 11th, 12th and 13th. It is under these circumstances that their Lordships held that giving of notice was not complete inasmuch as the Councilors of the Municipality received less than three clear day s notice of the intended meeting. In that case, it was nobody s case that the said notices were offered to the Councilors concerned but could not be delivered as the Councilors concerned could not be found. The second case of Ambalal Morarjl Soni v. Union of India Ors.-AIR 1972 Guj. 126 relied on by the respondent is based on the observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Narasimhiah v. Singri Gowda (supra) and is distinguishable on the facts of that case. In that case, admittedly the two show-cause notices as provided under Section 110 read with Section 153 of the Customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egd. post to the person concerned. The word used in Section 113 is issue and not give . While Section 79 provides for giving notice. Section 113 provides for the manner of doing it. Issuing notice by sending it by registered post is a recognised manner of service. It can therefore easily be inferred that all that Parliament intended was that the appropriate authority should send notice in writing by registered post before the expiry of the six months period." A Division Bench of the Madras High Court has also expressed the same view in the case of P. Bhormal Tirupati v. Addl. Collector of Customs, Madras-AIR 1974 Mad. 224. In that case also, the notice issued u/s. 110(2) of the Customs Act was returned with the endorsement Left . The observations made by their Lordships in paragraph 3 of the judgement are pertinent, which run :- The only point that arises is whether the service by registered post effected on 13-5-1969, which was returned with the endorsement left" is sufficient notice. Section 153 of the Act states that any order or decision passed or any summons or notice issued under the Customs Act shall be served (a) by tendering the order, decision, summons or noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how-cause notice as contemplated by Section 110(2) of the Customs Act is completed when it is issued and reaches the person concerned within six months of seizure of the goods. We further hold that under Section 110(2), the duty of the authority concerned is only to give notice within six months of the seizure of the goods. It is not their obligation to effect service beyond the provision of section 153 of the Customs Act. 15. Since the learned Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi has not decided the case on merits, but allowed the appeal on a preliminary ground that the show-cause notice was time-barred coupled with the fact that the respondent is also not available for arguments on merits of the case, we again have no alternative but to remand the case to the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, with the direction to decide the case on merits in accordance with the law. We further make it clear that since we are remanding the case, we do not think it proper to decide the second submission made by the respondent in his written submissions to the effect that the entire adjudication proceedings conducted by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise were without jurisdi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
