TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 is required to be issued within the period specified in Section 110(1), as extended by the proviso, of the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis: The Court followed the settled position that the time limit prescribed in Section 110 for giving notice in relation to seizure does not control the issuance of notice under Section 124. Section 124 does not itself prescribe any period of limitation for service of notice, and the earlier decisions construing these provisions had already reached the same conclusion.
Conclusion: A notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not required to be issued within the period specified under Section 110(1), as extended by its proviso, and the issue was answered against the assessee.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
