TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (7) TMI 226
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....absolute confiscation of 325 packages of foreign textiles and Audio cassettes, imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- on the appellant. The appellant had challenged only the penalty imposed on him. He had made it clear in the appeal memo "as far as the question of confiscation of the goods and the craft Arab Dhow is concerned, the appellant had nothing to say as he claims no title interest or claim of the said". 3. The main grounds of challenge are that the show cause notice was served on the wife of the appellants and not on the appellant. While handing over the show cause notice to the wife of the appellant she was not informed as to the nature of the document which she was asked to hand over to her husband. There was no service of the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also no dispute that the advocate who appeared before the Additional Collector did not represent the appellant but only represented the appellant's wife. If appears the advocate requested for copies of the documents and he was supplied with the copies. But then the advocate did contend before the Additional Collector that the show cause notice should have been served on the appellant. But the Additional Collector rejected this contention by observing: "I have considered the submissions made by the learned Advocate for Mrs. Saru who had filed the Vakalatnama for her (Mrs. Saru). In this case, the show cause notice and connected documents meant for Batata were served on Smt. Saru, wife of Batata in the last known postal address of Batata ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndered to the appellant. There is nothing on record to show that the wife of the appellant was his agent. It is not the case of the department that the appellant's wife had any power of attorney to receive notice, summons etc. It is also not the case of the department that any notice was sent to the appellant by registered post. It was, however, contended that the notice had been affixed in the notice board of the Customs House. But then, this affixation was not after complying with the manner provided in Clause (a) of Section 153. This affixation appears to have been done simultaneously with the tendering of the notice to the wife of the appellant. Clause (b) of Section 153 is clear and specific. The affixation on the notice board of the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant in accordance with law. 13. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Original bearing No. VIII (b) 10 (46) Cus. 081/1609, dated 2-6-1986 passed by the Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay. 14. By the above order, the Collector imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- on the appellant. 15. In this appeal the appellant had challenged the imposition of penalty on him. In the appeal memo as well as during the hearing of this appeal, it was contended that during the course of the adjudication proceeding the Collector, who was holding the adjudication, directed the advocate of the appellant to keep the appellant presence during the hearing. When the learned advocate failed to keep the appellant's presence he was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mehta. In his order, the Collector observed : "In any case despite all this defence put forth by J.D. Ved, Advocate, for Yusuf Kadar alias Yusuf Batata is discarded for doing the adjudication proceedings he could not bring forth his client when he was asked to do so by me and my predecessor as well. His argument that since he has obtained authority for appearing on his behalf is not tenable." In his order the Collector does not state that he required the presence of; Yusuf Kadar alias Yusuf Batata for examining him. The order does not spell out the reasons as to why the presence of Yusuf Kadar alias Yusuf Batata (present appellant) was required. The leaned Collector having allowed the appellant being represented by an advocate cannot ....