1985 (5) TMI 148

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1962 besides a personal penalty of Rs. 8,000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 stands transferred to the Tribunal for being disposed of as if it were an appeal. 2.  Shri Sujan Singh Chandhok is a Proprietor of M/s. Eastern Trading Agency and he returned from U.K. on 16-10-1973. His business premises were searched by the authorities on 22-11-1973 and carburetor parts such as needle pins, jet, float needles etc. as detailed in the Mahazar were seized on the reasonable relief that they were of foreign goods and were imported contrary to the provisions of the law. Proceedings were instituted against the appellants by issue of show cause notice which resulted in the impugned order. During the pendency of the proceedings Shri S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....om the date of seizure. So it cannot be deemed to be proper service within the statutory time limit. The learned Counsel relied on the ruling of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1966 S.C. 330 in the case of Narasimhan v. H.C. Singri Gowda and Others, and also the ruling in AIR 1972 Gujarat 126 in the case of Ambalal Morarji Soni v. Union of India and others. 3. The learned Departmental Representative contended that a reference is made in the order of adjudication to the postman's endorsement on the show cause notice on 20.5.1974 and 22.5.1974 that "the addressee was not found". This confirms that the show cause notice was issued within six .months' time. It was further urged that the defect or infirmity in the show cause notice wil....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uld not nullify or invalidate the recovery much less the authority's order of adjudication. The plea of the Counsel that the Board itself has observed that the appellant could not have cleared the goods under seizure as baggage is misconceived in law. The submission of the Counsel that the department did not examine the various persons who sold the goods under seizure to him is not legally tenable because under law when the appellant puts forth a plea that he purchased the goods under seizure from various persons it is for him to substantiate the same by acceptable evidence and not for the department to examine those persons. The appellant could have very well substantiated his plea during adjudication by examining those persons and product....