Tribunal Upholds Timely Notice & Forgery Finding on Altered Bill of Lading Date

The Tribunal confirmed that the show cause notice was issued within the stipulated 90-day period, considering it dispatched when put in proper form, not just signed. The appellant's alteration of the Bill of Lading date to avoid BIS certificate requirements was upheld as forgery, supported by admissions and evidence. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the notice's timely issuance and the forgery committed by the appellant.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the show cause notice was issued within the stipulated period of 90 days as per Regulation 20(1) of CBLR, 2013.
2. Whether the appellant committed forgery by altering the date on the Bill of Lading to circumvent the requirement of a BIS certificate.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Limitation Period for Issuing Show Cause Notice:

The appellant contended that the show cause notice was not issued within 90 days as required by Regulation 20(1) of CBLR, 2013. They argued that although the notice was signed on 17/01/2018, it was dispatched on 01/02/2018 and received by them on 07/02/2018, thus beyond the 90-day limit from the receipt of the offence report on 27/10/2017.

The department countered that the notice was dispatched on 17/01/2018 itself, within the 90-day period. They presented the dispatch register as evidence, showing the notice was sent out on 17/01/2018.

The Tribunal examined the meaning of "shall issue" in Regulation 20(1) and determined that a notice is considered issued when it is put in proper form and placed in the hands of a person authorized to serve it. They cited legal definitions and precedents, including the case of Kanubhai M Patel HUF vs Hiren Bhatt, which clarified that the issuance of a notice is complete when it is handed over for service, not merely when it is signed.

The Tribunal found that the notice was indeed dispatched on 17/01/2018, thereby fulfilling the requirement of being issued within 90 days. The date of service (07/02/2018) was deemed irrelevant to the issue of issuance.

2. Allegation of Forgery and Merits of the Case:

The appellant was accused of altering the date on the Bill of Lading from 06/09/2017 to 31/08/2017 to avoid the requirement of a BIS certificate mandated from 01/09/2017. The department's investigation confirmed the alteration through the EDI system and the shipping line OOCL.

The appellant's proprietor and an employee admitted to the alteration during their statements, which were not retracted. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority relied on these statements and other corroborating evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the findings of forgery, emphasizing that the alteration was done to circumvent legal requirements. They referenced the Supreme Court's decision in R. Vishwanatha Pillai vs. State of Kerala, which stated that equity or compassion cannot override the law when fraud is involved.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the show cause notice was issued within the stipulated period and that the appellant committed forgery. The order under challenge was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

---