1991 (6) TMI 161

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n a consignment of interlining material cleared against Bill of Entry No. 44/86 dated 13-2-1986. The appeal turns on the question whether the notice of demand was 'served' within the period of six months prescribed in Section 28(1) of the Act. The appellants have stated that they had received the notice on 18th August, 1986 which was after the expiry of the period of six months. The Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras has recorded the finding that the demand was issued in time and the appellants had not proved with documentary evidence that they had received the demand notice after the expiry of the time limit. 2. Shri B.B. Gujral, the learned counsel for the appellants stated that what Section 28 stipulated was 'service' of the notic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....28 of the Act for an assessment which was made by the Inland Container Depot, Bangalore and also argued on the question of jurisdiction of the Internal Audit Department of the Customs House to go into these matters. Although he cited numerous decisions on this point, it is not necessary for us to go into those matters. We can decide the appeal on the simple question of interpretation of Section 28(1) of the Act, in so far as the question of serving the notice is concerned. During the hearing Shri Gujral submitted the original notice No. AE/758/86 AC Bangalore dated 11/12-8-1986 issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Custom House, Madras in respect of the goods. He explained that this notice was received by the appellants on 18th Augu....