TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (10) TMI 81
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 29-9-1982 and 13-5-1983 respectively. The benefit of the exemption was available until 31-12-1983. All the three vessels travelled through Bombay and Madras to Calcutta. The goods carried in the three vessels were cleared on 10th, 11th, 12th and 24th January, 1984. Under Section 15 read with Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962 the relevant date for determination of rate of duty in the case of goods entered for home consumption, is the date on which the bill of entry in respect of such goods is presented, provided that if it has been presented before the date of actual entry it shall be deemed to have presented on the date of such actual entry. The bills were presented on prior entry basis on three different dates in December, 1983 as men....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....way issue these demand notices dated 27th - 28th December, 1984. It was realised by the Department that this action on the part of the Assistant Collector of Customs was not in conformity with the provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act. The Deputy Collector of Customs wrote a letter dated 22-7-1985 wherein after stating the facts which we have set out hereinbefore he proceeded to add as under : "Above facts, as it appears were within your knowledge but you did not submit the bills of entry to Customs House for re-assessment at appropriate rates of duty effective on the date of entry inwards of the subject vessels. Thus, it appears you have suppressed the fact regarding entry of the vessels and clearance of the goods after expiry of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the person chargeable with the duty or interest which has not been levied or charged or which has been so short-levied or part paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice. When the two demand notices were issued on 27th and 28th December, 1984 on the ground that there was a short levy both of them were time barred under Section 28(1)(b) of the Customs Act. On that there can be no dispute. 4. The proviso to Section 28(1) extends the period of limitation to five years in certain cases of collusion, wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts by the assessee. In the case of suppression of facts the proviso would be attracted and the period of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty Collector refers to the factum of suppression with a view to bringing those two notices within the period of limitation by the invocation of the proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act. There was nothing to stop the Department from issuing a proper show cause notice, if suppression of fact was a valid ground for invoking Section 28(1) of the Customs Act. But instead of doing so, what the Deputy Collector does is to justify the two demand notices as being within time by pointing out that this has a case of suppression of facts and then stating in a cavalier fashion that if the assessee, so desires he may approach the Assistant Collector for a hearing. It is incumbent on the part of the Department to issue a show cause notice and there....