The proper officer issuing notices under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act must have jurisdiction over the imports in question. The validity of subsequent notices and the applicability of the proviso to Section 28(1) depend on the evidence presented in the adjudication proceedings.

S.B. Majmudar, C.J.—In this reference at the instance of the Assessee the following question has been referred to us by the Customs Excise & Gold (Control), Appellate Tribunal, South Regional Bench at Madras for our opinion :

"Whether the first notice was within the jurisdiction of those Officers and consequently whether the Assistant Collector's notice was barred by time ?"

A few relevant facts leading to this reference may be noted at the outset. The Assessee M/s. Devilog Systems India, functioning at Bangalore imported raw materials and components/parts for 45 paper copier machinery vide Bill of Entry No. 30/83, dated 17-8-1983 and 47/83 under the Projects Imports vide Customs Tariff Heading 84.66 and thus availed of concessional rate of duty. The Assessee paid 40% of Customs duty and 20% of Auxiliary duty with the exemption of additional duty vide Notification No. 268/Cus., dated 2-8-1976. It is not in dispute between the parties that aforesaid goods were imported by the Assessee at Bangalore Air Port. It appears that Assistant Collector (IAD) Madras while auditing the working of Customs Office at Bangalore allegedly detected that the custom duty paid by the Assessee was short-levied as the Custom Tariff Heading 84.66 would not apply to the goods in question which were imported by the Assessee under the aforesaid two bills. The two notices in terms of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act were, therefore, issued by the Assistant Collector (IAD) Madras. In the notice dated 10-2-1984 it was alleged that the customs duty amounting to Rs. 3,06,468/- was short-levied or not levied while in the notice dated 28-5-1984 it was alleged that the customs duty of Rs. 6 lakhs was not levied or short-levied. Both these notices were based on the following reasons :-

(1) Goods are not covered by any Project Contract;

(2) No stamp found in the Bill of Entry for collection of duty amount.

Before the importer could show cause to these notices, he was served with two more notices both dated 27-9-1984 issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise (ICD) Bangalore. They were in continuation of the earlier notices dated 10-2-1984 and 28-5-1984 respectively. The said two notices appear to have been issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Inland Container Depot ('ICD'), Cantonment Railway Station, Bangalore - 46. The notices stated that they are being issued in continuation of the earlier notices dated 10-2-1984 and 28th May, 1984 issued by the Internal Audit Department ('IAD'), Madras. It has been stated in the said notices that in one case customs duty amounting to Rs. 2,46,694.43 was not levied/short-levied and in another case there was short-levy/non-levy of customs duty amounting to Rs. 3,06,580.86 in respect of the consignment referred to in the notice for the reasons mentioned in the said notices. The reasons indicated in the notices are arrayed as under :-

"(i) Imported items are not eligible for assessment under Heading 84.66 as they are utilised in assembly of plain Paper Copier and subsequently sold as such. Assembly of Plain Paper Copier cannot be construed as setting up of a plant. As such imported items are now classified under different heading of the Schedule I to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and appropriate duty charged as shown in the work sheet enclosed to the Demand notice.

(ii) Landing charges at 0.64% were not added at the time of original assessment to arrive at the assessable value. Same is now included to CIF Value to arrive at Assessable value."

The notice further called upon the Assessee to show cause within 15 days to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Inland Container of Customs, I.C.D., Cantonment Railway Station, Bangalore why the amount should not be paid by them. The Assessee replied to the notices and contended that the notices were time-barred and that earlier the Assessee was allowed facility of lower rate assessment for project import. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Bangalore by his order dated 30th April, 1