9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x months from 28th November, 2014 in terms of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Customs Act. Being aggrieved by the said order-in-original, the Respondent - Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai (for short "Appellate Tribunal)". By the impugned order [2015 (338) E.L.T. 135 (Tri.)], the Appellate Tribunal allowed the Appeal by setting aside the impugned order. However, the Appellate Tribunal observed that the show cause notice dated 25th May, 2015 issued under Section 124 of the said Act shall proceed. The Revenue was directed to retain sample of the pearls in question and also provide one set of sealed samples to the Respondent, in accordance with law. 3. The first submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant was that when the Appeal was taken up for hearing on 23rd June, 2015 by the Appellate Tribunal, the order impugned in the Appeal which had worked itself out as after completing investigation, a show cause notice dated 25th May, 2015 was issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act. He would, therefore, submit that on the date on which the Appeal was heard by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aph 9 and part of paragraph 13 of the said decision read thus :- "9. It is apparent that goods liable to confiscation may be seized by virtue of Section 110(1) but that those goods cannot be confiscated or penalty imposed without notice, opportunity to represent and to be heard to the owner of the goods or the person on whom penalty is proposed. This notice must be given within six months of the seizure of the goods, as envisaged by Section 110(2) of the Act, and if it is not, the goods must be returned to the person from whom the goods were seized. The proviso to Section 110(2) of the Act allows the period of six months to be extended by the Collector of Customs for a period not exceeding six months on sufficient cause being shown to him in that behalf. 13. There is no doubt that the words "on sufficient cause being shown" in the proviso to Section 110(2) of the Act indicates that the Collector of customs must apply his mind to the point whether a case for extending the period of six months is made out. What is envisaged is an objective consideration of the case and a decision to be rendered after considering the material placed before him to justify the request ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... power to extend the period of six months was conferred on the Collector of Customs. The Apex Court has laid down in paragraph 13 the manner in which the power to extend the time should be exercised. Firstly, the Customs Officer who seeks extension of time must show good reasons for seeking extension. The Apex Court held that the Collector must be satisfied that investigation is being pursued seriously and the officer needs more time for taking it to its logical conclusion. The Apex Court held that sub-section (2) of Section 110 creates a valuable right in favour of a person whose goods are seized in exercise of the power under sub-section (1) of Section 110. 8. Proviso to sub-section (2) lays down that period of six months cannot be mechanically extended but it can be extended only if the Commissioner of Customs is satisfied that sufficient cause is shown by the Customs Officer. 9. We have perused the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner on 27th November, 2014. Paragraphs 2.1 to 2.4 are the findings. Paragraphs 2.1 to 2.4 read thus :- "2.1 I have carefully gone through the facts, records and correspondence of importers of the case. The Investigation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rded that sufficient cause was made out by the Customs Officer. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and in view of the express words used in proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 110, the Commissioner could not have extended the time without recording his satisfaction on basis of the material on record that investigation is being pursued seriously and there is a need for more time for taking it to its logical conclusion. Merely because investigation is delayed, that is no ground for grant of extension of time so as to defeat the right created under sub-section (2) of Section 110. 11. Perusal of the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal shows that it records findings of fact based on the material which was available on record. It is recorded that the inquiry with respect to live consignment is completed in May-June, 2014 when the reports were received from the laboratory. It is recorded that laboratory reports have been shown to Panch witnesses on 29th May, 2014. The Appellate Tribunal observed that the request for extension of time was very vague. The Appellate Tribunal was conscious of the fact that show cause notice dated 25th May, 2015 has been issued. In sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
