9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before such date, we are of the view that the Commissioner of Customs is fully empowered to pass such order for extension without reference to the person from whom the goods were seized. The Commissioner of Customs is directed to consider the request made on behalf of the appellant for provisional release of the goods - appeal disposed off. - C/MA(EH)-76226 /2018 And Appeal No. C/77396/2018 - ORDER NO. MO/76028/2018 & FO/77059/2018 - Dated:- 29-11-2018 - SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI V. PADMANABHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Ms., Poulami Sikdar, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri S. Guha, A. C. (A. R.) for the Revenue ORDER PER CORAM The appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulami Sikdar, Adv. And Revenue is represented by Shri S. Guha, Ld. DR. 4. The Ld. Advocate submitted that the extension of time for issuance of Show Cause Notice by six months was ordered by the Commissioner without reference to the appellant. No hearing was extended to the appellant before issue of this order which is a violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. She also brought to notice that the seized goods, being betel nuts, are of perishable nature and will deteriorate with time and hence, the appellant has approached the Customs Authorities for provisional release of the said goods. However, for such request made on 17/01/2018 no response has been received from the Customs Authorities. She finally prayed that the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se possession they were seized: 1[PROVIDED that the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period to a further period not exceeding six months and inform the person from whom such goods were seized before the expiry of the period so specified: PROVIDED FURTHER that where any order for provisional release of the seized goods has been passed under section 110A, the specified period of six months shall not apply.] It is also pertinent to record that the amendment to the provisions has been made w.e.f. 29/03/2918. The original six months period from the date of seizure was to expire on 26/04/2018. Since the amended provisions ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is true that under the amending Act by Section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, authority was conferred upon the Income Tax Officer to assess a person as an agent of a foreign party under Section 43 within two years from the end of the year of assessment. But authority of the Income Tax Officer under the Act before it was amended by the Finance Act of 1956 having already come to an end, the amending provision will not assist him to commence a proceeding even though at the date when he issued the notice it is within the period provided by that amending Act. This will be so, notwithstanding the fact that there has been no determinable point of time between the expiry of the time provided under the old Act and the commencement of the amending ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d cannot revive a dead remedy. Nor can it suddenly extinguish vested right of action by providing for a shorter period of limitation. Similarly in T. Kaliamurthi v. Five Gori Thaikkal Wakf, (2008) 9 SCC 306, this Court said : 40. In this background, let us now see whether this section has any retrospective effect. It is well settled that no statute shall be construed to have a retrospective operation until its language is such that would require such conclusion. The exception to this rule is enactments dealing with procedure. This would mean that the law of limitation, being a procedural law, is retrospective in operation in the sense that it will also apply to proceedings pending at the time of the enactment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
