V.K.Gupta, J. - (1.) has referred the following points for consideration by a Larger Bench which are as follows : (1) What is the true meaning and purport of the expressing 'given' as used in Section 110(2) of the Customs Act? (2) Does the expression 'given' mean 'sending' or 'being received'? (3) What is the meaning of the expression 'given' as used in Section 124 of the Customs Act and does this expression also mean merely 'sending' or does it also mean 'being received'? (4) By using the expression 'shall be served' in Section 153 of the Customs Act, has or has not the legislature intended that every notice issued under the Customs Act should be actually served, that is 'given', that is 'be received' by the person for whom it is ment or to whom it has been issued? (5) Does the expression 'sending by registered post' as used in Clause (a) of Section 153 of the Act only indicate the manner of issuance of the notice or does it also prescribe, by implicity obliterating the expression 'shall be served' that there is no need to ensure that the notice has actually been received by the person concerned? (6) Does the combined reading of Sections 110(2), Section 124(a) and Section 153 of the Customs Act mean that the responsibility of a person issuing notice rest by merely sending it by registered post and that the person whose goods have been seized under Section 110 does not have any right of actually receiving the notice before the expiry of 6 months so as to invoke the benefit of release of goods conferred upon him under Clause (2) of Section 110 of the Act?
(2.) In view of the said reference, the matter has been placed before this Bench.
(3.) The reasons for the said references are that a ld. Single Judge ('Tarun Chatterjee, J.') in Opatape Fibres Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta reported in 1995 (1) CHN 38 relying upon the decisions in the case of K. Narasimhiah v. H.C. Singri Gowda held as follows: "For the reasons aforesaid, it must be held that 'the notice is given contemplated by Section 110(2) of the Act is not the same thing as sending the notice' and 'the notice is given' as occurring in Section 110(2) of the Act would mean that either the show cause notice was received by the importer or at least it had reached him. Admittedly, in this case, the show cause notice was received by the writ petitioner after the period of six months from the date of seizure as prescribed in Section 110(2) of the Act. It is not the case of Customs Authorities that the notice was even tendered to the writ petitioners on any date before the expiry of the period of limitation, as prescribed in Section 110(2) of the Act. It is also not the case of customs authorities that any other mode of service as contemplated in Section 153 of the Act was effected on the writ petitioners on any date prior to the expiry of the period of limitation." ;