https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250821 The court interpreted the term "given" in Sections 110(2) and 124(a) of the Customs Act to require the notice to be received by the person concerned, not just dispatched. Notices not received within the stipulated period were deemed non-compliant with Section 124(a). The court emphasized the necessity of actual receipt for effective communication. Section 153 was held to govern the mode, not the timing, of notice service. The court rejected reliance on Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, emphasizing the importance of actual receipt. Following the Gujarat High Court's precedent, the court directed the release of the seized goods in favor of the petitioners. en-us Thu, 24 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Nov 2014 18:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250821 The court interpreted the term "given" in Sections 110(2) and 124(a) of the Customs Act to require the notice to be received by the person concerned, not just dispatched. Notices not received within the stipulated period were deemed non-compliant with Section 124(a). The court emphasized the necessity of actual receipt for effective communication. Section 153 was held to govern the mode, not the timing, of notice service. The court rejected reliance on Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, emphasizing the importance of actual receipt. Following the Gujarat High Court's precedent, the court directed the release of the seized goods in favor of the petitioners. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 24 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250821