Case Details: Union of India vs. Jatin Ahuja (2025) 36 Centax 301 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- J.B. Pardiwala & Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
- Ms Nisha Bagchi, Sr. Adv. with S/Shri Sarthak Karol, P.V. Yogeshwaran, Navanjay Mahapatra, Dinesh Kumar Garg, Abhishek Garg, Advs., Gurmeet Singh Makker, Ambar Qamaruddin, Dhananjay Garg, B. Krishna Prasad, Raj Bahadur Yadav, AORs,, for the Appellant.
- S/Shri Pradeep Jain, Adv., Gopal Singh Chauhan, Shubhankar Jha, Sidhartha Joshi, Ms Gunjan Tanwar, Bijender Singh, Karan Malik, Rakesh Gogia, Tejasvi Kumar, Advs., Deepak Goel, Ms Abha R. Sharma, Rajeev Singh, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Ambar Qamaruddin, AORs, Kunal Malik, AOR(NP), for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee submitted that no notice regarding the seized goods was issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act within six months of the seizure, nor was the period extended under the first proviso to Section 110(2). The Department contended that Section 110A allowed provisional release of goods, but the assessee argued that the statutory limitation for issuance of the show-cause notice had expired. The matter was accordingly placed before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Held
The Supreme Court held that the timelines prescribed under Section 110(2) for issuance of a notice are distinct and independent from the powers under Section 110A, which merely allow provisional release of seized goods. Since no show-cause notice was issued within the prescribed six months and the period was not extended, the seizure automatically lapsed. The Court emphasised that statutory provisions cannot be circumvented and allowed the assessee’s appeal while dismissing the Department’s appeal, affirming that failure to issue a timely notice extinguishes the Department’s claim over the seized goods.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Jatin Ahuja v. Union of India — 2013 (287) E.L.T. 3 (Del.) — Affirmed [Para 25]
- Auto Creaters v. Union of India — 2015 (325) E.L.T. 49 (Del.) — Affirmed [Para 25]
- Akansha Syntex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — 2014 (300) E.L.T. 49 (P & H) — Affirmed [Para 25]
- Akansha Syntex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — 2013 (296) E.L.T. 178 (Bom.) — Affirmed [Para 25]
List of Cases Cited
- Haresh S. Bhanushali v. Union of India — 2021 (376) E.L.T. 232 (Bom) — Relied on [Para 23]
- Jayant Hansraj Shah v. Union of India — 2008 (229) E.L.T. 339 (Bom.) — Distinguished [Paras 16, 17]
List of Departmental Clarification Cited
- C.B.E. & C. Instruction No. 1/2017-Cus., dated 8-2-2017 [Para 23]
