TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 14
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aring Nos.14797 dated 26.05.2000, 12032 dated 04.05.2000 & 25633 dated 28.08.2000. The said imported consignments were subjected to customs duty, which was paid by the petitioner on 01.06.2000, 09.05.2000 & 04.09.2000 respectively. On payment of duty by the petitioner, the goods were released. However, they were issued with notices under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the fourth respondent. In response to the same, the petitioner sent replies vide letters dated 12.12.2000, 24.11.2000 and 11.04.2001 stating that as per Section 28 of the Act, show cause notices for non-levy of anti dumping duty, must be served on the person chargeable with such duty, within the statutory time limit of six months, from the date of payment of duty, whereas, the demand notices were served on the petitioner, beyond the period prescribed and hence, the same are barred by limitation. 2.2. Notwithstanding the objections raised by the petitioner for the demand notices, the third respondent passed orders dated 15.10.2001, 15.10.2001 and 28.09.2001 confirming the demand of Rs.1,68,531/- Rs.10,56,064/- and Rs.43,58,637/-, after having held that the Dema....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ined in Section 28 (3) (d) of the Act as the date of payment of duty or interest i.e., the date on which customs duty or interest was paid by the petitioner. Adding further, the learned counsel submitted that the term "serve" has no specific definition either in the Customs Act or in the General Clauses Act and therefore, if the meaning as provided in the Oxford's Dictionary & Thesaurus is taken note of, the word "serve" is defined to mean "deliver". Therefore, the word "serve" or "service" of any kind of document would imply the actual delivery of such document at the hands of the concerned addressee or recipient and not the date on which it was booked in the post office for being served. 3.3. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions (i)State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar [(2005) 4 SCC 350], wherein, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "statutory provisions must be given their plain and literal meaning and when two interpretations are possible"; (ii)Ambalal Morarji Soni v. Union of India [AIR 1972 Guj 126], wherein, it was held by the Gujarat High Court that "merely dispatching the notice to the in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he date of payment of duty and there is no delay in serving the notices on the petitioner. In support of his contention, he has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Sha Moolchand Praopchandji Gandhi vs. C.C.(Airport), Chennai reported in 2003 SCC Online Mad 1078, wherein, it was held by this Court that despatch of notice within a period of six months would be sufficient compliance of the requirement of the Customs Act, 1962. The learned counsel also submitted that Section 27 of the General Clauses Act clearly states that where any Central Act requires any document to be served by post, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing prepaying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document and unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. Pointing out the same, the learned Senior Standing Counsel submitted that the notices were despatched by the fourth respondent well within the period of limitation to expire. The learned Senior Standing Counsel therefore prayed this Court to dismiss the writ petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....neously been made, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice: (b) the person chargeable with the duty or interest, may pay before service of notice under clause (a) on the basis of, - (i) his own ascertainment of such duty; or (ii) the duty ascertained by the proper officer, the amount of duty along with the interest payable thereon under section 28AA or the amount of interest which has not been so paid or part-paid." "153. Modes for service of notice order, etc. - (1) An order, decision, summons, notice or any other communication under this Act or the rules made thereunder may be served in any of the following modes, namely: (a) by giving or tendering it directly to the addressee or importer or exporter or his customs broker or his authorised representative including employee, advocate or any other person or to any adult member of his family residing with him; (b) by a registered post or speed post or courier with acknowledgement due, delivered to the person for whom it is issued or to his authorised representative, if any, at his last known place of business or residence; (c) by sending it to the e-mail address as provided ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver to the petitioner in person on 03.04.2001. 10.According to the petitioner, notices dated 06.11.2000 and 08.02.2001 issued in respect of 2nd and 3rd bill of entries, were not served within six months from the relevant date and hence, the same are barred by limitation and the demand of duty made thereunder consequently, fails. On the other hand, it is the submission of the respondents that the date of reckoning for the purposes of limitation must be the date on which the notices were despatched by the respondents and not the date of receipt by the petitioner. 11.On a perusal of the documents enclosed in the typed set of papers, it could be seen that the notice dated 06.11.2000 in respect of bill of entry no.12032 dated 04.05.2000, was sent to the wrong address of the petitioner, but it was delivered to them, on 10.11.2000 i.e., one day after the expiry of the limitation period and hence, the service of notice on the petitioner was completed. Similarly, in respect of bill of entry no.25633 dated 28.08.2000, the notice was initially issued on 13.02.2001 and the same was returned on 28.02.2001 as the party was not in station, which is well within the limitation period and the same....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act treats the expressions 'serve' and 'give' in identical manner. This provision reads as under: "Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression "serve", or either of the expressions "give" or "send", or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, prepaying, and posting by Registered Post a letter containing the document, and unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post." (emphasis added). As 'serve' and 'give' are treated alike, Ambali Karthikeyan case cannot be held inapplicable to the instant case. It is also noticed that in the case of Bhoormal Vs. Additional Collector of Customs (Supra), the Madras High Court has held that receipt of notice by addressee is not required for effective service in terms of Section 153 of the Customs Act. Following the rulings of the High Courts, we hold that the demand notice pertaining to Bill of Entry No.12032, whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....substantial compliance is a judicial invention, equitable in nature, designed to avoid hardship in cases where a party does all that can reasonably be expected of it, but failed or faulted on some minor or in consequent aspects which cannot be described as the "essence" or the "substance" of the requirements. Like the concept of "reasonableness", the acceptance or otherwise of a plea of substantial compliance depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the purpose and object to be achieved in the context of the prerequisites which are essential to achieve the object and purpose of the rule or regulation. Such a defence cannot be pleaded if a clear statutory prerequisite which effectuate the object and the scope of the statute has not been met. Certainly, it means that the court would determine whether the statute has been followed sufficiently so as to carry out the intent for which the statute was enacted and not a mirror image type of strict compliance. Substantial compliance means "actual compliance in respect to the substance essential to every reasonable object of the statute" and the court should determine whether the statute has been followed sufficiently so as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....010. On behalf of the petitioners, it has been contended that the notices which have been dispatched for service only on 07.04.2010, are clearly time barred inasmuch as the date of dispatch would be the date of issue of the notices. Whereas, on behalf of the revenue, it has been contended that the notices were actually signed on 31.03.2010, hence, the said date would be the date of issue and as such, the impugned notices have been issued within the time limit prescribed under Section 149 of the Act. 14. In the background of the aforesaid facts and contentions, the core issue that arises for consideration is as to when can the notice under Section 148 of the Act be said to have been issued. In this context, it would be necessary to examine the true import of the expression "shall be issued" as employed in section 149 of the Act. 15. The expression 'issue' has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary to mean "To send forth; to emit; to promulgate; as, an officer issues orders, process issues from court. To put into circulation; as, the treasury issues notes. To send out, to send out officially; to deliver, for use, or authoritatively; to go forth as authoritative or bin....