2017 (9) TMI 1278

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ime. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Customs Officers detected a case of fraudulent exports of goods and claim of huge amount of duty drawback thereon by the exporter. The Adjudicating Authority ordered Shri Bishnu Agarwal, Proprietor of M/s Vineet Enterprises to pay the amount erroneously paid to them along with interest and penalty was imposed upon Shri Bishnu Agarwal including the appellants amongst others. 3. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 4. The ld.Counsel for the appellants raised a preliminary issue that a notice is required to be given to the officers within the stipulated period under Section 155 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962. It is further submitted that no notice under Section 155 (2) of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s are quite serious in nature. However, the Adjudicating Authority has dropped the proceedings on two grounds :- (i) The proceedings are time barred in view of Section 155(2) of the Customs Act. (ii) The acts of omission and commission of the respondents have not rendered the goods liable to confiscation under the Customs Act. Hence, they are not liable for penalty under Section 114. In these circumstances, we want to deal with only the above two grounds on which the Commissioner has dropped the proceedings. Revenue contends in the grounds of appeal that Section 155 of the Customs Act would not be applicable to the adjudication proceedings on the ground that Section 155 refers to suits, prosecutions or legal proceedings before the Court .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , the Tribunal, in the case of M.I. Khan, has held that protection under Section 155 of the Customs Act is available even in respect of adjudication proceedings. Therefore, the Commissioner was correct in holding that the protection under the Act is available to the respondents. However, in terms of Section 155(2), in order to initiate any proceedings, the time limit indicated therein should be adhered to. In the present case, it is on record that the proceedings have not been initiated within the time limit. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case and also the alleged connivance of the respondents, we hold that the Commissioner was legally correct in dropping the proceedings on the grounds of limitation prescribed in Section 1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X