Issuing notice within 6 months via registered post fulfills Customs Act requirement. Remanded for decision on merits.

The Tribunal concluded that issuing a notice within six months, even if not physically delivered, fulfills the requirement under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act. The show-cause notice sent by registered post was deemed timely and valid. The case was remanded to the Collector of Customs (Appeals) for a decision on the merits, leaving the jurisdictional issue open for the respondent to raise before the Collector of Customs (Appeals).

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Timeliness and validity of the show-cause notice under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act.
3. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise in the adjudication proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The primary issue in this case is the interpretation of sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Customs Act, which states that if no notice is given under clause (a) of Section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whom they were seized. The contention revolves around whether "given" means the notice must be served within six months or merely issued within that period. The Tribunal concluded that "giving" a notice is complete when it is issued and reaches the address of the person concerned within six months, even if it is not actually delivered due to the recipient's absence.

2. Timeliness and validity of the show-cause notice under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act:
The show-cause notice in the case was sent by registered post on 15-12-1982, within six months from the date of seizure (29-6-1982 by the Police or 30-6-1982 by the Central Excise officers). The notice was returned with postal endorsements indicating the respondent was out of station. The Tribunal held that the duty of the authority is only to issue the notice within six months. The actual delivery is not required if the notice reaches the address within the stipulated period. This interpretation aligns with the judgments in Ambali Karthikeyan v. Collector of Customs, C.D. Govendrao v. Additional Secretary to the Government of India, and P. Bhormal Tirupati v. Additional Collector of Customs, which support that issuing a notice by registered post fulfills the requirement of "giving" notice under the Act.

3. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise in the adjudication proceedings:
The respondent argued that the adjudication proceedings conducted by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise were without jurisdiction. However, since the Collector of Customs (Appeals) did not decide the case on merits but allowed the appeal on the preliminary ground of the notice being time-barred, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the Collector of Customs (Appeals) to decide on merits. The Tribunal did not address the jurisdictional issue, leaving it open for the respondent to raise this objection before the Collector of Customs (Appeals).

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the show-cause notice was validly issued within the six-month period as required by Section 110(2) of the Customs Act. The case was remanded to the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, for a decision on merits, including the jurisdictional issue raised by the respondent.

---