9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty foregone. However, it is a settled position that where the Act is silent on the limitation, the proceedings have to be initiated within a reasonable period, and the said reasonable period has to be ascertained based on a holistic reading of the Scheme of the Act. In the instant case, admittedly, the impugned notice is issued for non-submission of Export Obligation Discharge Certificate dated 23 September 1996, after almost 26 years. On a reading of the Customs Act, the reasonable period for initiating any proceedings for recovery of dues can certainly not be 26 years, even where a bond may have been executed. Section 28 of the Customs Act, and that too, in a case where suppression or fraud is alleged, provides a time limit of 5 years. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he proceedings are initiated after almost 26 years. It is his submission that although there is no limitation provided under the Customs Act, the proceedings ought to have been taken within a reasonable period and a period of 26 years cannot be treated as a reasonable period in the facts and circumstances of the case. Mr. Raichandani relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Union of India vs. Citi Bank 2022 (382) E.L.T. 293 (S.C.) in support of his submission. 4. Mr. Adik, learned counsel for the respondents submits that under Section 143 of the Customs Act, no time limit is provided for enforcement of the bond executed. Therefore, the impugned notice is not barred by limitation. Thus, he submits that the present petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the proceedings initiated after 26 years can be considered reasonable. Therefore, in our view, the proceedings commenced by the impugned notice dated 15 December 2022 are barred by inordinate and wholly unexplained delay. 8. Mr. Raichandani is justified in relying on the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Citi Bank (supra), where the show cause notice under FERA issued almost a decade after the transaction date, was quashed on the grounds of delay in initiating the proceedings. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Coventry Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Joint Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise Anr. Writ Petition No.4082 of 2022 vide order dated 25 July 2023, has analyzed this issue of delayed adju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
