TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (1) TMI 821
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... MCD, NCH, Mumbai - 400 001 for the respondent M/s. Patvolk, Mumbai-59. 2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Patvolk, (Div. of Forbes Sea Consortium Ind. Pvt. Ltd.) filed IGM No. 799 dated 19-3-1998. The Mumbai Port Trust vide their out turn report reported that goods against item nos. L-132 and L148 were short landed. Accordingly, on the basis of the said out turn report Show-Cause-Notice dated 20-7-1998 was issued to the steamer agent. They were asked to explain the said short landing and account for alleged short landed goods. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner adjudicated the case, vide order dated 14-8-2008 and imposed penalty of Rs. 75,000/- under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962, on steamer Agent/Appellant. The sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng action within four years time and not imposing penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 by passing adjudication orders. 3.2 The Commissioner (Appeals) in para 4 of the order while upholding that applicant's contention that the adjudication order which is issued almost after 10 years does not merit levy of any penalty has placed reliance upon W.P. No. 528 of 1995, holding that period of 5 years is more than reasonable. In Writ Petition No. 528 of 1995 in the case of Parekh Shipping Corporation [1995 (80) E.L.T. 781 (Bom.)] in exercise of the powers under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Show Cause Notice was issued after a period of 12 years. Therefore the High Court of Bombay has held that Show Cause Notice must ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g 5 packages of bearings. In Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. in Writ Petition No. 1236 of 1981 and 1354 of 1984 dated 17-7-1986 reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 948 (Bombay), the Bombay High Court has held that "At the time of unloading of the LCL (Less Container Load) container, if the seals are found intact, then the carrier should be responsible to account for the difference between the manifested quantity and the de-stuffing tally." In the present case it was an LCL container and therefore, the Steamer Agent is liable for action under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. In Response to the Show-Cause-Notice issued under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962 the Respondent party here in has made the following main cross-objections :- 4.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Customs. (v) 2003 (156) E.L.T. 964 (Bom.) - Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay. (vi) 1986 (25) E.L.T. 948 (Bom.) - Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Customs & Ors. (vii) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, A.I.R. 1970 -SC 253 = 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J159) (S.C.) (viii) Calcutta High Court in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 36 (Cal.) - Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs (Appeals.) (ix) Bhagwandas Tolani v. B.C. Aggarwal reported in 1983 (12) E.L.T. 44. (x) Hon'ble ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re after processes of personal hearing and concluding of processes of finalisation/issuance of final order-in-original were completed. Also there is nothing on record so as to suggest that there was any request/submission from the Respondents herein for early hearing and decision in this case. 9. From above, Government is of the view that the "alleged delay" in completion of adjudication proceedings can not be solely attributable to the department. Government further notes that the relied upon judgment by the Commissioner (Appeals) and Respondents herein is of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 528/95 in M/s. Parekh Shipping Agnecy's case 1995 (80) E.L.T. 781 (Bom.) wherein discussions & stipulations are for limitation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect- " 10.1 Hon'ble High Court Calcutta, in the case of Angus Company Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, reported as 1998 (38) E.L.T. 20(Cal.) and CESTAT in the case of M/s. Shakti Beverages Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, 2003 (153) E.L.T. 445 (T-Mum.) took the view that when Show Cause Notice was issued within the time prescribed then the fact that the final order was passed only after ten year cannot be a reason to set aside the order, as there is no limitation prescribed for conclusion of the proceedings under Section 116 of Customs Act, 1962. 10.2 Thus the Government is convinced that any Loading arrangements from c....