Customs duty recovery must follow Section 28, and notice-board display can start limitation for appeal.

A recovery rule made under the Customs Act cannot override the Act's mandatory demand mechanism, so duty demanded after denial of exemption must be raised under Section 28 rather than Rule 8 of the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty) Rules, 1996. The demand was therefore treated as validly made by the Deputy Commissioner. For limitation, display of the Order-in-Original on the customs house notice board constituted communication of the order, and later receipt of another copy did not extend time. The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was accordingly held to be time-barred and beyond the condonable period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether duty demand consequent to denial of exemption could be raised under Rule 8 of the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty) Rules, 1996 or had to be made under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) Whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether duty demand consequent to denial of exemption could be raised under Rule 8 of the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty) Rules, 1996 or had to be made under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The recovery rule framed under Section 156 of the Customs Act, 1962 had to remain consistent with the Act. Where inconsistency existed between Rule 8 and the mandatory mechanism under Section 28, the statutory provision prevailed and the inconsistent part of the rule could not override the Act. The demand for duty consequent upon denial of exemption was therefore referable to Section 28.

Conclusion: The Deputy Commissioner had jurisdiction to demand customs duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the objection to jurisdiction failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The Order-in-Original was displayed on the notice board of the Customs House, which amounted to communication of the order within the meaning of the Act. The later receipt of another copy from the Central Excise authorities did not shift the date of communication. On that basis, the appeal was filed beyond the statutory period and also beyond the condonable period under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Conclusion: The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was time-barred and the delay was not condonable.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand was held to be validly made under the Customs Act, and the appeal was rejected as barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: A rule made under the Customs Act cannot override or dilute the Act's mandatory recovery mechanism, and display of an order on the notice board can constitute communication for limitation purposes under the Customs Act, 1962.

---