Case Law Details
Shreyansh Marble Tiles Pvt Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
Conclusion: After amendment of section 110(2) it was concluded that no separate notice was necessary, before extending the period of limitation by a further six months (for issuance of show cause notice); the authority had to record reasons in writing, which of course, should be based on materials and inform the concerned party about the extension before the expiry of the first period of six months.
Held: Assessee-company pointed out that DRI officers searched the residential premises of assessee’s director and the factory premises of assessee-company. At the factory premises, the officers found huge stocks of marble and granites in the open premises of the factory. That the crystallized glass panels were stored in another premises adjacent to the above factory premises and assessee informed the officers that they had imported another eight containers of crystallized glass panels. That thereafter the officers along with assessee entered the godown premises . That DRI officers resumed the high sea sales, import purchase file, import file, sales bill file. Further, the goods imported at the assessee factory premises were stated to be imported by bill of entry and in this regard eight bills of entry mentioned was given. That, further the aforementioned goods were detained through separate detention memo dated 09 December 2018 and the goods were handed over to the Director of the Appellant Company for safe custody. That assessee’s director was also issued summons to appear on 10 December 2018 at 10:00 AM before the DRI with reference to mis-declaration / undervaluation in respect of crystallized glass panel and rough marble blocks by assessee-company. That by communication dated 13 May 2019 the assessee’s company was informed that goods imported by him pertaining to bill of entry No.7756415 date 08.12.2016 filed with Customs House, Gujarat, Port Limited, Pipavav, which was detained vide seizure memo dated 09 December 2018 and seized vide seizure memo dated 12 January 2019 which was actually valued at Rs.61,188 / – instead of Rs.50,478/- as declared in the bill of entry thereby evading differential duty of ―Rs. 3,153/-‖. That the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jamnagar, in exercise of powers vested with him under first proviso of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 had extended the time limit for issuance of Show Cause Notice for goods.It was held the effect of these amendments, was that the rigour of unamended Section 110(2) had been softened. Now, a person, whose goods were detained, can claim provisional release. It was apparent that a textual reading of Section 110(2) would lead one to conclude that no separate notice was necessary, before extending the period of limitation by a further six months (for issuance of show cause notice); the authority had to record reasons in writing, which of course, should be based on materials and inform the concerned party about the extension before the expiry of the first period of six months.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGEMENT
This appeal has been filed by M/s. Shreyansh Marble Tiles Pvt. Limited against the order of Commissioner extending time limit for issuance of show cause notice under Section 110(2) of Customs Act, 1962.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
