9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 729X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and P-2) being barred by limitation in terms of Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Customs Act, 1962') with further prayer that the proceedings be deemed to be concluded in view of second proviso of Section 28(9) of the Act, 1962. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a proprietorship concern and is engaged in the business of import and supply of various goods including textile related items, sports goods and dry dates and for this purpose, the petitioner is having IEC No. BNLPS3321M. 3. The petitioner had imported 9 consignments of dry dates from January, 2020 to February, 2020 and filed bills of entry accordingly for home consumption. The said goods were imported from Jebel Ali, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bia origin to evade custom duty @ 200% in terms of notification No. 05/2019-Customs dated 16.02.2019. 5. The respondent department, thereafter, issued two show cause notices both dated 28.01.2022 (Annexures P-1 and P-2) to the petitioner and the relevant extract of the said show cause notices are reproduced as under:- 1) The dry dates imported vide Bills of Entry 6397102 dated 08.01.2020, 6392966 dated 08.01.2020, 6396602 dated 08.01.2020, 6392101 dated 08.01.2020 and 6612442 dated 24.01.2020 should not be classified under CTH 98060000 and held liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) & 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) Customs duty amounting to Rs. 8,64,01,393/-, as detailed in Annexure- A, should not be demanded and recovered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unds:- 1. As per Section 28(9) of the Act, 1962 the proper officer has to adjudicate the show cause notice, if issued under Section 28(4) within one year from the date of issuance of show cause notice. 2. The extension in time for passing order can be given by officer senior in rank to the proper officer. 3. The proper officer shall inform the person concerned for non-passing of order. 7. The petitioner has placed on record notice dated 05.12.2022 (Annexure P-3) vide which the personal hearing was fixed for 12.12.2022. Vide letter dated 09.12.2022 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner sought time to file reply. Again vide notice dated 12.12.2022 (Annexure P-5), the date was fixed as 26.12.2022 for personal hearing. The petitioner again s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment passed in M/s. Ram Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra) and A.B. Sugars Ltd. vs. State of Punjab 2009 SCC Online P&H 7874 on the proposition that before the extension of time to pass order, it is mandatory to give notice and personal hearing to the assessee. 11. After service, written statement dated 11.04.2023 has been filed by the respondent and in the preliminary submissions, the respondent has referred to Supreme Court judgment passed in the case of Tita Nagar Paper Mills Ltd. vs. State of Orissa 1983 SC 603, Constitutional Bench judgment in case of G. Veeappa Pillai vs. Raman & Raman Ltd. AIR 1952 SC 192, Assistant Collector of Central Excise vs. Dunlop India, AIR 1985 SC 330, Si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon to file reply within 30 days from the receipt of the show cause notice. The petitioner was given dates for personal hearing and it sought adjournments even for personal hearing. The time spent in granting adjournments to the petitioner for personal hearing and to file its defence was the main reason for giving extension of time beyond one year by the competent authority for passing the adjudicating order. 14. The show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 28.01.2022 and the petitioner failed to file reply even after 10 months from the date of issuance of show cause notice whereas it was to file reply within 30 days. The petitioner, as per the dates taken by it, deliberately requested to postpone the personal hearing so that time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 022 read with Board's circular No. 07/2022-Cus dated 31.03.2022 vide which the period of one year has to be counted w.e.f. 01.04.2022. Hence for all intents and purposes, the case of the petitioner was not barred by limitation. Further the judgment referred by the petitioner in M/s. AB Sugar Limited's case (supra) is not applicable as the principles of natural justice have been duly followed. The petitioner attended first personal hearing on 01.02.2023 and at that time, it was made aware of extension of one year for adjudication of the case which was granted by the Chief Commissioner of Customs under Section 28(9) as per letter dated 15.12.2022 (Annexure R-1). 17. Vide CM-16468-CWP-2023, replication dated 21.09.2023 was taken on record. V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
