The date of despatch of notices alone will be taken into account for limitation, and the doctrine of substantial compliance was applied to the facts and circumstances of the case.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a issuance of writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the respondents culminating in order dated 11.10.2004, bearing Nos.940 & 939 of 2004 in Appeal No.C/84 of 2002 & C/83 of 2002 passed by the first respondent and quash the same.)

Common Order:

R. Mahadevan, J.

The relief sought in these writ petitions is to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records from the file of the first respondent, pertaining to the Final order Nos.940 & 939 of 2004 dated 11.10.2004, in Appeal Nos.C/84/2002 & C/83/2002 and quash the same.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

2.1. The petitioner firm has imported three consignments of ascorbic acid to be used in the manufacture of medicines vide bills of entry bearing Nos.14797 dated 26.05.2000, 12032 dated 04.05.2000 & 25633 dated 28.08.2000. The said imported consignments were subjected to customs duty, which was paid by the petitioner on 01.06.2000, 09.05.2000 & 04.09.2000 respectively. On payment of duty by the petitioner, the goods were released. However, they were issued with notices under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as -the Act-) by the fourth respondent. In response to the same, the petitioner sent replies vide letters dated 12.12.2000, 24.11.2000 and 11.04.2001 stating that as per Section 28 of the Act, show cause notices for non-levy of anti dumping duty, must be served on the person chargeable with such duty, within the statutory time limit of six months, from the date of payment of duty, whereas, the demand notices were served on the petitioner, beyond the period prescribed and hence, the same are barred by limitation.

2.2. Notwithstanding the objections raised by the petitioner for the demand notices, the third respondent passed orders dated 15.10.2001, 15.10.2001 and 28.09.2001 confirming the demand of Rs.1,68,531/- Rs.10,56,064/- and Rs.43,58,637/-, after having held that the Demand Notices were served on the petitioner within the period of limitation. The petitioner was also directed to pay the amount as demanded by the fourth respondent towards anti-dumping duty under Section 28 of the Act.

2.3. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the third respondent, the petitioner preferred appeals in Appeal Nos.33, 34 & 35 of 2002 before the second respondent, who rejected the same as devoid of merits on 28.01.2002. Challenging the same, the petitioner went on further appeals in Appeal Nos.82, 83 & 84 of 2002 before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity, -the CESTAT-). By the common order dated 11.10.2004, the CESTAT allowed Appeal No.82 of 2002 relating to Bill of Entry No.14797 and dismissed the other two appeals. Challenging the said common order passed by the CESTAT in Appeal Nos. 83 and 84 of 2002, the petitioner has come up with these two writ petitions for the relief stated supra.

3.1. Mr.J.Sivanandaraaj, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Section 28 of the Act, a show cause notice for non-levy of anti dumping duty has to be served on the person chargeable with such duty within the statutory time limit of six months from the date of payment of duty. But in the present case, such notices were served on the petitioner only after the expiry of the period of limitation and therefore, the demand notices issued by the fourth respondent are barred by limitation. The learned counsel further submitted that in respect of 3rd Bill of Entry bearing no.25633 dated 28.08.2000, the show cause notice issued by the fourth respondent was returned unserved since the petitioner was not in station. In such circumstances, as per Section 153 of the Act, the fourth respondent ought to have affixed the unserved notice on the notice board of the Customs House, but, it was not don