CHELLAPPAN Vs. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question arising in this appeal turns on the interpretation of S.153 of the Customs Act, 1962 which is in these terms:-

(2.) Counsel for the appellant relied on two rulings of the Allahabad High Court in C. Maharaj & Sons v. Sales Tax Officer, IV, Agro and others 1964 (15) STC 879 and Gopal Das Uttam Chand v. Sales Tax Officer, Dehra Dun 1970 (25) STC 229 interpreting R.77 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948 in support of his contention that all the modes under S.153(a) should be exhausted before S.153(b) is resorted to. The rule interpreted in those decisions is differently worded. We do not think that the decisions are helpful in understanding S.153 which we have to interpret in this case. The wording used in the rule interpreted in those decisions was "if none of the methods indicated is available" service may be effected by affixture. There is no such provision in S.153(b) of the Customs Act. We think the methods indicated in S.153(a) are alternative methods any one of which could be attempted in the first instance. The different modes of service provided by the rule also support the view; either tendering to the person (apparently when it is feasible) or attempting to serve on his agent (apparently when one is available) or by sending by registered post To say that an attempt to tender notice must be made in cases where it is not feasible or even possible or that an attempt should be made to serve on an agent when there is no agent or none is known to exist would be to make the section unworkable.

(3.) We see no reason to interfere. We dismiss this appeal but direct the parties to bear their respective costs.