TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Customs case: Time limit for Show Cause Notice clarified by Tribunal</h1> <h3>PHONIX TRADERS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA</h3> PHONIX TRADERS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA - 2013 (291) E.L.T. 547 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues:Limitation period for issuance of Show Cause Notice in a customs case.Analysis:The judgment pertains to a Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application filed by the applicant challenging the confiscation of rice, redemption fine, and penalty imposed by the lower authority. The main issue raised was the ground of limitation regarding the issuance of the Show Cause Notice. The applicant argued that the notice was issued beyond the 6-month period from the date of detention of the goods, relying on a Kolkata High Court judgment. The Revenue, on the other hand, contended that due to misclassification and mala fide intent of the exporters, the 6-month period should not apply. The Tribunal examined the facts, including the detention and seizure dates, along with the relevant legal provisions.The Tribunal observed that the rice was detained on 15-3-2010, and a Show Cause Notice was issued on 23-9-2010, within 6 months from the seizure date of 25-3-2010. The applicant argued that the Notice should have been issued within 6 months from the detention date. The Tribunal referred to a Kolkata High Court judgment where the date of sealing was considered as the date of seizure due to lack of access to the goods. However, in the present case, there was no such sealing by Customs officers. Additionally, the Tribunal cited a Supreme Court judgment stating that failure to issue the Notice within 6 months only entitles the person to return the goods, without specifying a time limit for the Notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the goods were not requested to be returned, the Tribunal held that the seizure continued until the Notice was issued, rejecting the plea of limitation.Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the ROM application, concluding that the applicant's plea of limitation was unfounded based on the facts and legal precedents cited. The judgment was pronounced on 17-8-2011 by the Tribunal.
TaxTMI 