CESTAT ascertains Relevance of Amendment of Section 110(2) of Customs Act, 1962 [Read Order]

The Custom, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), West Zone Bench ascertained the relevance of the amendment of Section 110(2) of Customs Act, 1962.

In the case of Shreyansh Marble Tiles Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Jamnagar a significant difference between the previous provision and the provision after an amendment was paid heed to and was taken into account. The basic difference between the two was that previously under Section 110(2) of Customs Act, 1962, the Commissioner has to show a sufficient cause based on objective considerations and after the amendment, the Commissioner is not required to do so.

The appellant namely Shreyansh Marble Tiles Pvt. Ltd. contended that the DRI officer conducted a search in the residential and official premises of the appellant company. During the search, the officer found a huge stock of marble and granites in the open premises of the factory. The appellant contended that the Commissioner of Customs in the exercise of the vested power in him extended the time limit for the issuance of Show Cause Notice for the goods.

The issues raised in this case were whether the amendment of Section 110(2) of Customs Act, 1962 will alter the situation for the grant of personal hearing or not?

The coram under the Custom Act, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) comprises of Mr. Ramesh Nair, a Judicial Member, and Mr. Raju, a Technical Member ascertained the relevance of the amendment of Section 110(2) of Customs Act, 1962.

The tribunal relied on the decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of CC (Preventive) Jodhpur vs Swees Gems and Jewellery – 2019 (368) ELT 455 (Raj.) and highlighted the difference between the previous provision and the provision after an amendment was paid heed to and was taken into account. The basic difference between the two was that previously under Section 110(2) of Customs Act, 1962, the Commissioner has to show a sufficient cause based on objective considerations and after the amendment, the Commissioner is not required to do so.