TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds extension order for show cause notice, finds no prejudice. Petition dismissed.</h1> The court dismissed the petition challenging the legality of the order extending the period for issuing a show cause notice. It held that the extension ... Seized goods - Confiscation Issues Involved:1. Legality of the order extending the period for issuing a show cause notice.2. Compliance with the rule of natural justice.3. Sufficiency of the material before the Collector for the extension.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Order Extending the Period for Issuing a Show Cause Notice:The petitioner challenged the legality of the order dated 12th September 1974, issued by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, which extended the period for issuing a show cause notice. The petitioner argued that the order was passed without hearing him, thus contravening the rule of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Assistant Collector v. Charan Dass Malhotra, 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1477 = AIR 1972 SC 689. According to Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, goods must be notified for confiscation within six months of seizure, failing which they must be returned to the possessor. However, the Collector has the power to extend this period by six months if sufficient cause is shown. The court observed that the statutory provision does not explicitly require a hearing before extending the period for further inquiry.2. Compliance with the Rule of Natural Justice:The Supreme Court in Assistant Collector v. Charan Dass Malhotra emphasized that the right to restoration of goods accrues to the party from whom they were seized, necessitating an opportunity to be heard before extending the time. However, in the present case, the petitioner had disowned the packages and was not concerned with their confiscation or return. Therefore, the court concluded that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner by the extension of time for further inquiries. The court also noted that the notice for the extension hearing was issued and served according to law, including affixing it on the notice board of the Customs House and at the petitioner's residence, which was found locked.3. Sufficiency of the Material Before the Collector for the Extension:The court examined the report of the Superintendent of Customs dated 7th September 1974, which stated that the investigation was incomplete and requested more time. The Collector extended the time based on this report. The court found that the extension was justified by the material on record and subsequent events. The Customs authorities had to determine the real owner of the packages, which required extensive investigation. The show cause notice issued on 9th February 1975 indicated that further investigation had linked the petitioner to the contraband articles through distinctive laundry marks on shirts found in the packages and at the petitioner's residence. The court concluded that the extension of time was necessary and did not suffer from any legal infirmity or violation of natural justice.Conclusion:The court dismissed the petition, holding that the extension order dated 12th September 1974 was legally valid, complied with the rule of natural justice, and was based on sufficient material. The petitioner's contention failed, and the writ was not issued. The petition was dismissed with costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
