Timely Notice Delivery Critical: Appeal Allowed

The appeal focused on whether a notice of demand under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act was served within the mandated six-month period. The appellants argued that receiving, not just issuing, the notice was crucial, asserting the notice arrived after the deadline, making the proceedings illegal. The Tribunal, considering the appellants' evidence of receiving the notice late, found the service occurred post the stipulated period, rendering the proceedings unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and lower authorities' decisions were overturned.

---

---

Issues: Whether a demand notice under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 was served within the prescribed period of six months, and whether proceedings initiated on a notice served after that period could be sustained.

Analysis: Section 28(1) requires service of notice on the person chargeable with duty within six months. The appellants produced the original notice bearing a receipt date of 18 August 1986, while the respondents produced no evidence to rebut that receipt. The notice was therefore treated as served after expiry of the statutory period, and the distinction between issue of the notice and its service was ative to the limitation question.

Conclusion: The notice was not served within the prescribed period, so the demand proceedings were time-barred and could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the orders of the lower authorities were set aside because the demand notice was served beyond the statutory limitation period.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute requires notice to be served within a fixed period, mere issuance or despatch is insufficient; service must be proved within time, failing which the proceedings are barred by limitation.

---