ORDER
Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T)
1. This Revenue Appeal is directed against Order dated 16-11-1988 of Collector of Customs (Appeals).
2. The appellants imported stainless steel balls which were classified under Heading 8481.90. A demand for duty was subsequently issued claiming assessment under Heading 84.82 or 7326.90. This demand was subsequently confirmed. The appellants contended before Collector of Customs (Appeals) that the impugned goods are specifically used as component parts of values. They also claimed that the demand notice was received by them only on 14-5-1987, i.e., after the lapse of statutory time limit of 6 months. Collector of Customs (Appeals) upheld this claim and allowed the appeal on the question of limitation without going into the merits of the case.
3. No one was present on behalf of the Respondents when the matter was called.
4. Arguing on behalf of the Revenue, the ld. D.R. submits that it is correct that demand was received by the appellant on 14-5-1987 but the demand notice was actually served on the clearing agent prior to this date and in that context the demand was within statutory period of 6 months. He, however, could not clarify whether the clearing agent had been authorised to enter into correspondence in regard to differential amount of duty or make good this differential amount of duty. He also could not cite any case law clarifying that in such circumstances clearing agent could be treated as an agent and a notice served on him could be considered as notice served on assessee.
5. We have heard Ld. D.R. and perused the records of the case. The duty admittedly was paid on 12-11-1986 and the demand notice was served on the appellants on 14-5-1987. These facts are not disputed. There is no material on record to indicate that the clearing agent has been authorised in the circumstances to contest re-assessment of goods on behalf of the Assessee. In such circumstances, we cannot persuade ourselves to accept the proposition that a notice served on the clearing agent is indeed a notice served on the assessee. Since the Notice on the assessee was served beyond the statutory period of 6 months, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Collector (Appeals) allowing the appeal and considering the demand as time-barred.
6. We, therefore, reject the revenue appeal and uphold the impugned order on the question of limitation without going into the merits of the case.