9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. On a perusal of the documents enclosed in the typed set of papers, it could be seen that the notice dated 06.11.2000 in respect of bill of entry no.12032 dated 04.05.2000, was sent to the wrong address of the petitioner, but it was delivered to them, on 10.11.2000 i.e., one day after the expiry of the limitation period and hence, the service of notice on the petitioner was completed. Similarly, in respect of bill of entry no.25633 dated 28.08.2000, the notice was initially issued on 13.02.2001 and the same was returned on 28.02.2001 as the party was not in station, which is well within the limitation period and the same fact was also fairly conceded by the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner was called to appear in person before the customs authorities and the notice was served on them by hand on 03.04.2001. In such circumstances, the service of notice effected on the petitioner at the first instance itself, would be deemed to be completed service and hence, the question of affixing the notice in the notice board of the customs house, will not arise. Therefore, this court is of the view that if the date of despatch of notices is taken into consideration, the notices s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thin the period of limitation. The petitioner was also directed to pay the amount as demanded by the fourth respondent towards anti-dumping duty under Section 28 of the Act. 2.3. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the third respondent, the petitioner preferred appeals in Appeal Nos.33, 34 35 of 2002 before the second respondent, who rejected the same as devoid of merits on 28.01.2002. Challenging the same, the petitioner went on further appeals in Appeal Nos.82, 83 84 of 2002 before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity, 'the CESTAT'). By the common order dated 11.10.2004, the CESTAT allowed Appeal No.82 of 2002 relating to Bill of Entry No.14797 and dismissed the other two appeals. Challenging the said common order passed by the CESTAT in Appeal Nos. 83 and 84 of 2002, the petitioner has come up with these two writ petitions for the relief stated supra. 3.1. Mr.J.Sivanandaraaj, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Section 28 of the Act, a show cause notice for non-levy of anti dumping duty has to be served on the person chargeable with such duty within the statutory time limit of six months from the date of payme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ress does not complete service of notice. Further, if the notice was not received by the concerned person, the proper mode would be for the authorities to serve the notice by affixing the same on their notice board ; (iii) Vadilal Industries Ltd v. Union of India [(2006) 197 ELT 160], in which, the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, has held that where the alternative methods of service prescribed in section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were not followed upon failure of service by post, the averment made on oath by the assessee that a copy of the order was not served on the assessee remained unrebutted ; (iv)Saral Wire Craft Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs [(2015) 14 SCC 523], in which, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that departmental authorities must meticulously follow and obey the mandate enshrined under the statute and further observed that it is a basic principle of law to abide by the act prescribed under such statutes . Referring to those decisions, the learned counsel submitted that the fourth respondent failed to follow the procedure laid down under the Act in respect of service of demand notices and the notices were served on the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns as devoid of merits. 5.We have heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record. 6.At the outset, it is to be pointed out that the petitioner preferred three appeals in respect of three bill of entries viz., No.14797 dated 26.05.2000, No.12032 dated 04.05.2000 and No.25633 dated 28.08.2000, before the CESTAT. Upon hearing the arguments on both sides, the CESTAT allowed the appeal bearing No.C/82/2002 in respect of bill of entry no.14797, by the very same order dated 11.10.2004, against which, the Revenue filed an appeal in CMA.No.3193 of 2005; and the said appeal was dismissed, by judgment dated 14.06.2013. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petitions, challenging the order of the CESTAT focussing only in respect of the dismissal of the other two appeals. In view of the same, this court need not be gone into the judgment passed in CMA.No.3193 of 2005, though the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the same. 7.Now, the issue involved in these writ petitions from the pleadings made by the parties, is, whether the show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing it to the e-mail address as provided by the person to whom it is issued, or to the e-mail address available in any official correspondence of such person; (d) by publishing it in a newspaper widely circulated in the locality in which the person to whom it is issued is last known to have resided or carried on business; or (e) by affixing it in some conspicuous place at the last known place of business or residence of the person to whom it is issued and if such mode is not practicable for any reason, then, by affixing a copy thereof on the notice board of the office or uploading on the official website, if any. (2) Every order, decision, summons, notice or any communication shall be deemed to have been served on the date on which it is tendered or published or a copy thereof is affixed or uploaded in the manner provided in subsection (1). (3) When such order, decision, summons, notice or any communication is sent by registered post or speed post, it shall be deemed to have been received by the addressee at the expiry of the period normally taken by such post in transit unless the contrary is proved. The cumulative reading of the aforesaid provisions of law makes it clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and hence, the service of notice on the petitioner was completed. Similarly, in respect of bill of entry no.25633 dated 28.08.2000, the notice was initially issued on 13.02.2001 and the same was returned on 28.02.2001 as the party was not in station, which is well within the limitation period and the same fact was also fairly conceded by the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner was called to appear in person before the customs authorities and the notice was served on them by hand on 03.04.2001. In such circumstances, the service of notice effected on the petitioner at the first instance itself, would be deemed to be completed service and hence, the question of affixing the notice in the notice board of the customs house, will not arise. Therefore, this court is of the view that if the date of despatch of notices is taken into consideration, the notices served on the petitioner are within the period of limitation. 12. Accordingly, the CESTAT, on appreciation of the factual aspects involved in these cases, rightly held that the show cause notices dated 06.11.2000 and 08.02.2001 were issued well within the period of limitation and ultimately, dismissed the appeals filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Bhoormal Vs. Additional Collector of Customs (Supra), the Madras High Court has held that receipt of notice by addressee is not required for effective service in terms of Section 153 of the Customs Act. Following the rulings of the High Courts, we hold that the demand notice pertaining to Bill of Entry No.12032, which was despatched by Registered Post on 07.11.2000, was served within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act. In the result, the assessee's challenge in Appeal No.C/83/2002 fails. The appeal stands dismissed. 7. The situation in Appeal No.C/84/2002 is worse for the appellants. The date of payment of duty in this case is 04.09.2000 and the date of despatch of demand notice by Registered Post is 12.02.2001. The period of limitation expired on 04.03.2001. According to the appellants, the demand notice was personally served on them only on 03.04.2001. We find that admittedly the demand notice despatched by Registered Post on 12.02.2001 could not be served on the noticee on account of his being out of station. The notice was returned by the postal authorities stating that the party was not in station, whereupon a second not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficiently so as to carry out the intent for which the statute was enacted and not a mirror image type of strict compliance. Substantial compliance means actual compliance in respect to the substance essential to every reasonable object of the statute and the court should determine whether the statute has been followed sufficiently so as to carry out the intent of the statute and accomplish the reasonable objectives for which it was passed. 33. A fiscal statute generally seeks to preserve the need to comply strictly with regulatory requirements that are important, especially when a party seeks the benefits of an exemption clause that are important. Substantial compliance with an enactment is insisted, where mandatory and direct recruitment requirements are lumped together, for in such a case, if mandatory requirements are complied with, it will be proper to say that the enactment has been substantially complied with notwithstanding the non- compliance of directory requirements. In cases where substantial compliance has been found, there has been actual compliance with the statute, albeit procedurally faulty. The doctrine of substantial compliance seeks to preserve the need t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. 15. The expression 'issue' has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary to mean To send forth; to emit; to promulgate; as, an officer issues orders, process issues from court. To put into circulation; as, the treasury issues notes. To send out, to send out officially; to deliver, for use, or authoritatively; to go forth as authoritative or binding. When used with reference to writs, process, and the like, the term is ordinarily construed as importing delivery to the proper persons, or to the proper officer for service etc, 15.1 In P. Ramanathan Aiyer's Law Lexicon the word 'issue' has been defined as follows:- Issue. As a noun, the act of sending or causing to go forth; a moving out of any enclosed place; egress; the act of passing out; exit, egress or passage out (Worcester Dict.); the ultimate result or end. As a verb, To issue means to send out, to send out officially; to send forth; to put forth; to deliver, for use, or unauthoritatively; to put into circulation; to emit; to go out (Burrill); to go forth as a authoritative or binding, to proceed or arise from; to proceed as from a source (Century Dict.) Issue or process: G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
