9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ECHNICAL) Shri. Hardik Modh, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. A. Mishra, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair The issue involved in the present case is that whether the impugned order passed for extending the time limit for issuing the SCN invoking the proviso to sub section 2 of section 110 of Customs Act, without issuing of SCN for this purpose is legal and correct. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant s imported goods were seized by the custom Authority, however an SCN as provided under Section 110(2) was not issued within the period 6 months. However, a letter dated 26.10.2018 was issued to the appellant by the Additional Commissioner, Custom House-Kandla, wherein the decision of the Commissioner was communicated that the period of issuance of SCN under proviso to Section 110(2) of Customs Act, 1962 has been extended up to 03.05.2019, thereafter, the appellant vide letter dated 10.11.2018 requested to provide copy of notice issued for seeking extension of time as per Section 110(2) which was responded by the Deputy Commissioner, Custom House-Kandla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time of 6 months after recording reason in writing. 4. Heard both the sides and perused the records. We find that the issue has to be decided by us is that whether the Commissioner is required to issue notice to the importer proposing extension of time limit for issuance of SCN or he may extend the time limit without putting the importer to the notice in this regard. We find that on the identical issue for the prior period to the amendment in Section 110 i.e. before 29.03.2018, Hon ble Bombay High Court considered the identical issue in the case of Principal Commissioner of Customs vs Beauty Gem 2018 (359) ELT 299 wherein the Hon ble High Court has passed the following order. 10. We have perused the show cause notice dated 25th November, 2014. Paragraphs 2.1 to 2.3 of the order-in-original are reproduction of what is stated in the show cause notice. There is no finding recorded by the Commissioner that he was satisfied that investigation is being pursued seriously and there is a need for grant of more time for taking the investigation to its logical conclusion. There is no finding recorded that sufficient cause was made out by the Customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority has found that no grounds existed for extension of time, the notice issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act remains unaffected. Even that is the finding recorded by the Appellate Tribunal in the impugned judgment and order and in particular in paragraph 7 thereof. 14. We, therefore, find that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal. In any event, no substantial question of law arises much less a question of law. 15. Accordingly, we find no merit in the Appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending Notice of Motion does not survive and the same is disposed of. 5. From the above order it is observed that for extending the time a SCN was issued despite this the Hon ble High Court has held that exceeding of time limit cannot be made without recording any finding, accordingly, Revenue s appeal was dismissed. Similarly in the case of Gaunir Impex Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (3460 ELT 106 (MAD) the Hon ble High Court observed that even though a SCN for extension of time was issued by it is only before three days of the expiry of the period and seeking extension of time to reply th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Where any goods are seized under sub-section (1) and no (2) notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of Section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. [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. In this context, we also refer to paragraph 163 of FM speech regarding the need for amendment under the Customs Act which is reproduced as under: I also propose to make certain change to the Customs Act, 1962 to further improve ease of doing business in cross border trade, and to align certain provisions with the commitments under the Trade Facilitation Agreement. To smoothen dispute resolution processes and to reduce litigation, certain amendments are being made, to provide for pre-notice consultation, definite timelines for adjudication and deemed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 110(2) of the Customs Act subject to the restriction that he is not entitled to the information about the investigation which is in possession of the Investigating Agency as there can be no right in any person to be informed whose goods during the investigation material collected against him and there is no need for maintaining the investigation proceedings. This view has been affirmed in the I G Rao case referred (supra). The provisions of Section 110(2) before and after the amendment is as identical but for on sufficient cause being shown has been replaced with reasons to be recorded in writing extends such period , for a period not exceeding six months and inform the person from whom such goods were seized before expiry of the said period. Careful analysis of the provision makes it clear that the right of issuance of the Show Cause Notice for the extension of the period of six months as prescribed under said sub-Section of Section 110(1) remains same from which the emanate right of Show Cause Notice to the affected party in furtherance of Principle of Natural Justice as his rights are being prejudicially affected. The amendment will not obliterate the aforesaid position of is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rospective effect only. In view of that also we find that the impugned order is not sustainable as the new amended provision has been applied for the seizure made during period when the amendment was not there in the statue. 14. In view of above our analysis as above, we are of the considered opinion that there is no legality for dispensing with the Show Cause Notices to the affected party even under the amended provisions of Section 110(2) of the Act. The Adjudicating Authority has erroneously held that this is no need of issue of Show Cause Notice in the cases of extension at hand. 15. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders and allow appeals with consequential relief as per law. 7. In view of above, we are of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable and the same are being set aside with consequential benefit, as per law, which includes the return of imported goods to the person from whom the seizure have been made. 7. In view of the above decision which is in respect of the amended provision of Section 110 (2), we are of the view that there is no legal authority with the department for dispe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
