TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1385
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013 on 31 March 2016 and is valid upto 18.12.2025. The Appellant had filed three bills of entry under the aforesaid license for clearance of toys imported from China. The details whereof are follows : S. No. Name of the Importer Bill of Entry No. & Date Bill of lading No. & Date 1. M/s Goyal Enterprises (IEC No. 0510100376) 3413939 dated 27.09.2017 OOLU2592985508 dated 31.08.2017 2. M/s Mahadev Enterprises (IEC No. BPVPG0667J) 3413748 dated 27.09.2017 OOLU2592985500 dated 31.08.2017 3. M/s Mahadev Enterprises (IEC No. BPVPG0667J) 3413598 dated 27.09.2017 OOLU2592985509 dated 31.08.2017 2. On examination, department observed that Bill of lading dated 31.08.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f CBLR, 2013. 3. The said proposal has been confirmed vide the Order-in-Original No. 34 dated 06/07/2018 being aggrieved whereof the Appellant is before this Tribunal. 4. We have heard Shri M. S. Arora, learned Advocate for the Appellant, Shri Rakesh Kumar and Sunil Kumar, Authorised Representatives for the Department. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the Appellant that order is liable to be set aside on the sole ground of limitation as the show cause notice as envisaged under Regulation 20(1) of CBLR, 2013 was not issued within 90 days of receipt of the offence report. It is impressed upon that though the show cause notice was signed on 17/01/2018 but was dispatched on 01/02/2018 and was received by the Appellant on 07/02/2018 as s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. 8. After hearing both the Parties, we observe as follows : The only line of argument on behalf of Appellant to set aside the impugned order is the ground of limitation that the impugned show cause notice is not issued by Commissioner of Customs within 90 days of the date of the receipt offence report as it was put in post after the expiry of 90 days irrespective it was signed by the issuing authorities during the period of limitation itself. 9. In view thereof, we confined our findings to the issue of limitation. For the purpose Regulation 20 (1) CBLR 2013 is perused. It reads as follows : 20. Procedure for revoking licence or imposing penalty: (1) The Commissione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....text, it would be necessary to examine the true import of the expression "shall issue" as employed in the said Regulation. (15.1) In P. Ramanathan Aiyers's Law Lexicon the word "issue" has been defined as follows: "Issue. As a noun, the act of sending or causing to go forth; a moving out of any enclosed place; egress; the act of passing out; exit; egress or passage out (Worcester Dict.); the ultimate result or end. As a verb, "To issue" means to send out, to send out officially; to send forth; to put forth; to deliver, for use, or unauthoritatively: to put into circulation; to emit; to go out (Burrill); to go forth as a authoritative or binding, to proceed or arise from; to proceed as from a source (Century Dict.)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is put in proper form and placed in the hands of a person authorised to serve it and with the bonafide intent to have it served. 15. In the present case, there is no dispute that the show cause notice was signed by Commissioner on 17/01/2018 i.e before the expiry of period of 90 days from the date of receipt of inquest report. No doubt, considering the above definition of word "issue" mere signing of notice cannot be equated with issuance of notice. As contemplated in the impugned regulation, the date relevant for issue would be the date on which the notice was handed over for service to the proper officer. 16. In the present case, the Appellant's submission is thereof the show cause notice of 17/01/2018 was received by them on 07/02/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the date of issue of notice. The said date, therefore, is 17/01/2018. Since the same is within the period of 90 days of receipt of inquest report by the Commissioner, the impugned show cause notice cannot be held to be barred by limitations. 20. The fact that date of service of the show cause notice upon the Appellant that is 07/02/2018 is absolutely not relevant for the impugned controversy, as the same is confined to issuance of notice. Event of issuance has to precede the event of service of notice. Hence the service of notice cannot be covered under the word "shall issue". 21. In view of the entire above discussion, we are not convinced with the arguments put forth on behalf of Appellant about the impugned show cause notice to ha....