9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity. Their only contention was that the show-cause-notices raising the demands of duty had been served on them beyond six months from the dates of payment of duties of Customs on the imported goods and hence the demands were barred by limitation. The original authority rejected this contention by relying on the Kerala High Court's ruling in Ambali Karthikeyan v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise [2000 (125) E.LT. 50 (Ker.)]. The appeals preferred by the party against the orders of the original authority did not succeed. The first appellate authority relied on the above ruling of the Kerala High Court as well as the judgment of the Madras High Court in Bhoormal v. Additional Collector of Customs [2000 (125) E.L.T. 118 (Mad.) = AIR 1974 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty in terms of Section 28 read with Section 153 of the Customs Act. This question has been addressed by both sides. 4. The facts tabulated below are not in dispute. S. No. Appeal No. B.E. No. B.E. dated Date of payment of duty Date of despatch of demand notice Date of expiry of period of limitation 1 C/82/2002 14797 26-5-2000 1-6-2000 1-12-2000 1-12-2000 2 C/83/2002 12032 4-5-2000 9-5-2000 7-11-2000 9-11-2000 3 C/84/2002 25633 28-8-2000 4-9-2000 12-2-2001 4-3-2001 Admittedly, the demand notice relating to Bill of Entry No. 14797 was despatched by Registered Post on 1-12-2000 on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat, in terms of Section 153, it was enough for the Department to serve a demand notice on the assessee by sending it by Registered Post to them. In the case of Ambali Karthikeyan, it has been held by the High Court that the date of despatch of notice by Registered Post and not the date of receipt of the despatch by the addressee is material for the purpose of Section 110(2). It was so held by reference to Section 153 of the Customs Act. As Counsel has sought to distinguish the provisions of Section 110 (2) from those of Section 28(1), we shall examine the provisions. Section 110(2) reads as under :- "Where any goods are seized under sub-section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under Clause (a) of Section 124 within six month ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at, in the case of Bhoormal v. 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 7-11-2000, 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 4-9-2000 and the date of despatch of demand notice by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
