B.R. ENTERPRISES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue for determination in the instant four appeals are common, hence these are being disposed of through a common order. The Customs authorities effected seizure of certain goods and, being unable to issue the show cause notice within a period of six months as stipulated in Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, the Commissioner of Customs proposed to extend the said period of six months by issuing show cause notice in terms of proviso to the said Section 110(2). The proviso stipulates that, the period of six months can be extended by the Commissioner of Customs for a period not exceeding six months, on sufficient cause being shown. It is an undisputed fact that, in all the four cases, the Commissioner did issue a show cause notice proposing the extension of this period of six months. However, the order that was passed pursuant to this show cause notice proposing extension, was issued after the expiry of six months from the date of seizure.

(2.) The ld. Counsel for the appellants pleads that, the order extending the six months' period having been issued after the expiry of six months from the date of seizure, such order cannot be treated as a compliance stipulated under the proviso to Section 110(2) of the Act. The other prayer of the ld. Counsel is that, the extension of time is required to be done only on sufficient cause being shown, which is not apparent in these cases. Accordingly, it is prayed by the ld. Counsel that, there is a failure to issue the show cause notice within six months and hence the appellants are eligible for return of the seized goods. The Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Pubjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Tarsem Kumar v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh - AIR 1972 Punjab and Haryana 444. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Court has held that, the right to get the seized goods back can be deprived only if the period of six months is extended before its expiry so that the retention of the possession of those goods by the Customs authorities is continuous under the statutory provisions and the order extending the time passed by the appropriate authority. Once that period is allowed to expire without being extended, a valuable right to claim their return accrues to the owner of goods, which defeats the right of the Customs authorities to retain possession of those goods after the expiry of six months.

(3.) The facts stated above are not in dispute. The ld. DR was not in a position to furnish any decision contrary to the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Tarsem Kumar (supra).