ORDER
K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T)
1. When the case was called, none was present for the respondents, who had asked for a decision on merits. Heard Shri Jainarayan Nair, Ld. DR for the appellant Collector of Customs, Bombay. In this appeal, the order dated 1-12-1988 of Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay is challenged. The issue to be determined is whether the demand of Rs. 3,073/- as short-levied duty from the respondents under Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 is within limitation under that Section or not. The duty had been paid on the goods on 16-10-1984. The Deptt. says that the Show Cause Notice under Section 28 was served on the importer/Customs House Agent on 6-3-1985. The respondents say that they have never been served with any show cause notice and that they were served with the Assistant Collector’s order dated 24-3-1988 confirming the demand and the respondents say that the demand is time-barred. The Deptt. has also not been able to lead any evidence regarding when, if at all the demand notice was served on the respondents and seem to rely on claim that a copy of the notice was served on the Customs House Agent on 6-3-1985. However, it has been held by this Tribunal in its order No. C/530/91-D, dated 31-12-1991 in the case of C.L. Jain Hosiery Mills v. Collector of Customs, Bombay that giving notice is not complete unless it reaches the person concerned and where the less charge demand has not reached the importer concerned within six months the notice is barred by limitation. In giving this decision, the Tribunal had not accepted the plea of the Department, that the less charge demand notice had been served on the Customs House Agent on the date of its issue. In the present case also, it has not been shown by evidence that the show cause notice under Section 28 for short levy had been served on the respondents importer within limitation and mere serving them on Customs House Agent, being not sufficient following the ratio of the above-cited present Cegat decision, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order of Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The appeal is rejected.