9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 797X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of duty or interest. Given the fact that the payment of duty on the above bill of entry was on 1.6.2000 and going by Section 28 of the Customs Act, the six months time for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction under Section 28 has to be counted from the date of payment of duty i.e. on 1.6.2000. - Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the proceedings initiated by the adjudicating authority was time barred. When the Revenue had accepted the two other bills of entry we fail to understand the logic in challenging the order of the Tribunal in respect of one bill of entry which was the subject matter in one of the appeals before the Tribunal – court relied AMBALI KARTHIKEYAN v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE (1970 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n adjudication order after issuing show cause notices, raising demands for payment of anti dumping duty amounting to Rs.1,68,531/- on the assessee. It was stated that anti dumping duty of Rs.10,53,320/- paid by the assessee was not taken into account for the purpose of levying countervailing duty. The assessee contended that the demand of duty being served beyond the period of six months from the dates of payment of duties of Customs on the imported goods, the proceedings taken for the alleged balance of anti dumping was without jurisdiction. The assessee contended that the limitation period had already lapsed to assume further jurisdiction to demand duty. 4. It is a matter of record that, apart from the assessee, notices were also served ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SL. No Appeal No. B.E. NO. B.E. Dated Date of payment of Duty Date of despatch of demand notice Date of expiry of period of limitation 1 C/82/2002 14797 26/5/000 1600 11200 11200 2 C/83/2002 12032 4500 9500 71100 91100 3 C/84/2002 25633 28/8/2000 4900 12201 4301 6. The Tribunal held that admittedly, the bill of entry No. 14797 was despatched by registered post on 1.12.2000, the date on which the period of limitation expired. Admittedly, the notice was served on the assessee on 2.12.2000. In the circumstances, the demand, being served beyond the six months per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.12.2000. Nevertheless, he sought to sustain the notice as one within the period of limitation based on the understanding of Section 153 of the Customs Act, which principally dealt with mode of service of order, decision etc. The said provision reads as follows:- Service of order, decision etc. - 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. 8. Thus, the Revenue sought to support its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as to be counted from the date of payment of duty i.e. on 1.6.2000. On the facts admitted, with the notice served on 2.12.2000 after the expiry of time limit on 1.12.2000, we have no hesitation in holding that the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the proceedings initiated by the adjudicating authority was time barred. Hence, cannot be sustained. 9. As far as the reliance placed on the decision of the Kerala High Court is concerned, we do not find that Revenue could draw any assistance from the said decision by making reliance on Section 28 of the Customs Act. It may be relevant to point out that similar contention taken in respect of other two bills of entry are not under challenge before this Court. When the Revenue had a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
