1992 (11) TMI 206

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of "imported cleaning compounds" through their clearing agents M/s. Champaklal A. Bhatt. It was assessed and duty was paid by the respondents on 22-10-1983. However, a less charge demand notice was issued by the authorities on 12-4-1984 which was confirmed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay, vide his confirmation notice dated 23-10-1987. Against that Order of the Assistant Collector, the respondents filed their appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, which was allowed by him observing as follows :- "I have duly considered the written as well as oral submissions. The revenue involved in this case of the order of Rs. 1,10,531.00.1 had mentioned earlier that no acknowledgment card is kept in the file as ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....87 i.e. long after the expiry of six months period prescribed by law. Appellant's contention that the demand was illegal is, therefore, quite correct. The impugned order is therefore set aside and the appeal admitted." 2.1 For holding so, the Collector (Appeals) inter alia has referred the judgment rendered by this Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. M/s. Presto Works, Jallandhar, 1987 (28) E.L.T. 469, wherein it was held that Section 28 of the Customs Act requires the service of notice on the person chargeable with the duty and, therefore, it would not be enough merely to issue a copy of the notice to the clearing agent in time and also upon the decision of this Tribunal rendered in the case of Shri Damodar Kery Naik....