9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 819X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice does not stand issued within 6 months from the date of seizure as envisaged by Section 110(2) of Customs Act, 1962, the effect of the same would be that the appellant would become entitled to return of the goods. However, it is seen that the goods were already carted by the appellant in CFS and continued to lie there even during the period of detention and after the seizure was formally made. They never applied for return of the rice. As such, it has to be held that the seizure continued till the Show Cause Notice was issued. The same cannot be held to be barred by limitation - Following decision of Chaganlal Gainmull v. CCE [1989 (11) TMI 59 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Decided against assessee. - C/29/2011 - Misc. Order No. M/1335 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 (Kolkata). 8.A2 On the other hand, the ld. DR appearing for the Revenue submits that the issue involved is mis-classification of rice and attempt of exporters to export non-Basmati rice in the guise of Basmati rice. As such, there being mala fide on the part of the assessee, the period of 6 months cannot be made applicable. In any case, submits the ld. DR that the goods were actually seized on 25-3-2010 under a proper Panchnama and the Show Cause Notice having been issued on 23-9-2010 within a period of 6 months from the date of seizure, is required to be considered as within time. 8.A3 After hearing both sides, we find that the facts are not in dispute. The 350.00 MTs cargo of rice was carted at Warehouse No. 2 of the Containers Frei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctical purposes. Accordingly, they held that Show Cause Notice should have been issued within 6 months from 22-11-2000. It is seen that the Hon ble High Court of Kolkata in above order has not held that the Show Cause Notice should have been issued within 6 months from the date of detention of the goods on 9-11-2000. By taking into account the peculiar fact that the room where the goods were placed was put under seal on 22-11-2000, thus debarring all access to the appellant to the goods, 22-11-2000 is to be treated as date of seizure. The facts in the present case are altogether different. The date of detention in the present case is 15-3-2010. The goods continued to remain in Warehouse No. 2 of the Containers Freight Station. They were f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
