Invalid customs demand notice issued by a lower authority could not sustain extended-period action under Section 28.

A notice invoking the extended period under Section 28 of the Customs Act was held invalid because it was issued by an authority lower than the Collector, although the proviso required competent issuance by the proper higher authority. The Tribunal followed binding Supreme Court authority on the competence of the issuing officer and also noted that the department could not adopt a position inconsistent with its own public notice on the practice of issuance by the Commissioner. The demand founded on the invalid notice could not be sustained, and the impugned order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether a notice invoking the extended period under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, issued by an authority lower than the Collector, was valid in law.

Analysis: The notice was issued invoking the proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged misstatement and suppression at the time of import. The controlling question was whether, where the law required such a notice to be issued by the Collector, a notice issued by the Assistant Collector could stand. The Tribunal applied the binding Supreme Court ruling on the competence of the issuing authority and also noted that the department could not take a stand contrary to the public notice communicating the practice of issuance by the Commissioner.

Conclusion: The notice issued by the lower authority was invalid, and the demand based on it could not be sustained. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order was set aside.

---