TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 80
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....show re-export of warehoused goods. For this purpose, Shri Ramesh Wadhera and Shri Sanjeev Maggu created fictitious firms and obtained IEC in their names. On the basis of the offence report received in the office of the Commissioner on 18 May,2018, a show cause notice dated 10 August, 2018 was issued to the appellant through speed post on 14 August, 2018 and was received back in their office with remarks of the postal authorities that 'bar bar jane par band milta hai'. Thereafter, the same was served by hand on 28 August, 2018 and after the report received from the investigating officer, the charges framed in the notice were confirmed. Consequently, the licence was revoked. Against the said Order, the appellant is before us. 3. This matter was initially heard on 10 April, 2019. As learned Counsel of the appellant took an objection that show cause notice issued to them is barred by limitation. Therefore, the proceedings under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR) are not maintainable. At this juncture both sides sought time to produce judicial pronouncements in their favour. Therefore, the matter was adjourned for 11 April, 2019, i.e. today. 4. When the matter was calle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me by the concerned competent authority. The event of issuance has to be preceded the event of service of notice. He also submits that the decision in the case of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and Wealth Tax Act are not applicable to the facts of this case. When it was asked from Shri Amresh Jain with regard to his reliance in the case of Purushottam Jajodia (supra) he failed to answer. 7. Further, Shri Sunil Kumar started further arguing the matter and placed reliance on the decision in the case of Purushottam Jajodia (supra) and also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise Vs. M.M. Rubber Company 1991 (55) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.). Thereafter, the learned Authorised Representative submits that they want to file a written submission. Therefore, they need time to file the same. 8. As requested by the learned Authorised Representative, the time was granted and written submissions were received on 12 April, 2019. The same are taken on record and extracted here below: During hearing of the appeal on 10.04.2019 and 11.04.2019, arguments on behalf of both the parties were advanced only on the issue of limitation. In order to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n'ble Supreme Court was not dealing with the procedure of the Issuance and the Service prescribed in other Acts. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Wealth Tax, U.P and another Vs. Kundan Lal, Bihari Lal [(1975) 4 SCC 844] was dealing only with the singular word "Issued" featuring in Section 18(2A) of the Wealth Tax Act. Again in this judgment the Supreme Court was not dealing with both the words "issued" and "served" featuring in the similar provisions of any other Act. However, as illustrated above, Section 153 of Customs Act uses both the words "Issued'' and "Served", in succession in the same line. It has also been mentioned above that the Event of issuance and the Event of service are mutually exclusive events and cannot be equated as one. If they are presumed to connote one the same thing, then the whole proviso of 153 becomes otiose. Further, it may be clarified that the Event of Issuance gets completed the moment Notices is issued by the Competent Authority pending its service. The Event of Service starts only when the notice after issuance is either tendered or sent by registered post as prescribed under the Customs Act. The two events can in no s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "issued" and "served" are used in interchangeable terms and in the legislative practice of our country they are sometimes used to convey the same idea. Accordingly, it was held that the word "issued" was not used in the narrow sense of "sent" but that the said expression had received, before the Indian Income tax (Amendment) Act, 1959, a clear judicial interpretation. SUBBA RAO J., as he then was dealing with the purpose which the word "issue" was intended to serve, after refereeing to Sri Niwas V. ITO cited in the judgement under attack and a Bombay decision, observed at page 108: The intention would be effectuated if the wider meaning is given to the expression 'issued'. The dictionary meaning of the expression 'issued' takes in the entire process of sending notice as well as service thereof. The said word used in Section 34(1) of the Act itself was interpreted by Courts to mean 'served'. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, U.P. v. Kundan Lal Behari Lal, AIR 1976 SC 1150." 13. Further, in the case of Kundan Lal Behari Lal (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has had an occasion to define the word "issued" and "observed" as under: "The main question on which the High Court decided ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r "sent", this Court held that all these expressions, namely, "serve", "give" and "sent" are interchangeable terms and therefore notice would be treated to have been issued only when the entire process of sending the notice i.e. from dispatch till the service thereof, is complete." 15. We have also gone through the decision of Purushottam Jajodia (supra) relied upon by the Authorised Representative and para 13 of the said Order indicates as under: "13. The key words, according to us, are -'informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the goods or to impose a penalty'. The object of Section 124(a) is that the person concerned had to be informed of the grounds on which the confiscation of the goods is to be founded. This can only happen when the person from whom the goods have been seized, receives the notice and is capable of reading and understanding the grounds of the proposed confiscation. Therefore, according to us, upon a conjoint reading of Section 110(2) and Section 124(a) of the said Act, the notice contemplated in these provisions can only be regarded as having been "given" when it is actually received or deemed to be received by the person....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ling against it or otherwise having it sent. This is based upon, as observed by Rajamanner, CJ in Muthia Chettiar V. CIT (ILR 1951 Mad. 815) "a salutary and just principle." The application of this rule so far as the aggrieved party is concerned is not dependent on the provisions of the particular statute, but it is so under the general law. The ratio of this distinction may also be founded on the principle that the Government is bound by the proceedings of its officers but contended by Sri Gaurishankar Murthy, to one of the two parties two a quasi judicial proceeding before the Collector and the Board's right under Section 35E to the exercise of the right of appeal by an aggrieved assessee from an order passed to its prejudice. The power under Section 35E is a power of superintendence conferred on a superior authority to ensure that the subordinate officers exercise their powers under the Act correctly and properly. Where a time is limited for the purpose by the statute, such power, as under Section 33A(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 referred to in Muthia Chettiar (supra) should be exercised within the specified period from the date of the order sought to be reconsidered. W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inquiry, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, shall prepare a report of the inquiry and after recording his findings thereon submit the report within a period of ninety days from the date of issue of a notice under sub-regulation (1). (6) The Commissioner of Customs shall furnish to the Customs Broker a copy of the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, and shall require the Customs Broker to submit, within the specified period not being less than thirty days, any representation that he may wish to make against the said report. (7) The Commissioner of Customs shall, after considering the report of the inquiry and the representation thereon, if any, made by the Customs Broker, pass such orders as he deems fit either revoking the suspension of the license or revoking the licence of the Customs Broker or imposing penalty not exceeding the amount mentioned in regulation 22 within ninety days from the date of submission of the report by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, under sub-regulation (5) : Provide....