LALCHAND BHIMRAJ Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are against a common order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in three different appeals filed by the assessee against three Orders -in -Original of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs passed in adjudication of three show -cause notices raising demands of Anti -dumping Duty (in short, "ADD") on the assessee. The assessee had not contested the demands of duty on merits before the original authority. Their only contention was that the show -cause -notices raising the demands of duty had been served on them beyond six months from the dates of payment of duties of Customs on the imported goods and hence the demands were barred by limitation. The original authority rejected this contention by relying on the Kerala High Court's ruling in Ambali Karthikeyan v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise, 2000 (125) ELT 50 (Ker.). The appeals preferred by the party against the orders of the original authority did not succeed. The first appellate authority relied on the above ruling of the Kerala High Court as well as the Judgment of the Madras High Court in Bhoormal v. Additional Collector of Customs, AIR 1974 Madras 224 to hold that the demand notices had been served on the assessee within the period of limitation as required by law. Hence the present appeals of the assessee.

(2.) We have examined the records and heard both sides. The following three demand notices are involved in this case: -

(3.) Apparently, the above notices were served within six months from the dates of payment of duty, on the CHA who had cleared the goods for the appellants. But this fact does not improve the Revenue's case inasmuch as service of demand notice on clearing agent has been held not construable as valid service on the importer vide Collector of Customs, Cochin v. Trivandrum Rubber Works Ltd., 2000 (69) ELT 27 (SC) : 1999 (106) ELT 9 (SC), wherein it was held that CHA's duties and functions under the Customs Act came to an end with the clearance of the imported goods and delivery thereof to the importer/owner. Therefore, the question which requires to be settled in each of these appeals is whether the demand notices were served on the assessee within six months from the dates of payment of duty in terms of Section 28 read with Section 153 of the Customs Act. This question has been addressed by both sides.