1990 (3) TMI 184

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... North Regional Bench, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.K. Bhatnagar, Member (T)].  - Both these cases arise out of the same order in original and therefore they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The learned counsel states thal in these cases a consignment of cigarette lighters was booked at Bangkok for Kabul and was being transhipped through Delhi when it was detained....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....986) as apparent from the internal pages 3 and 4 of the order in original. 8. It was received by the consignee at Kabul address on 22-5-1986 as apparent from the photo copy of the envelope filed by them. 9. It was their contention that this shows that it was not served on either of the two appellants within 6 months of the date of seizure. 10. Therefore the goods were liable to be release....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at the learned Addl. Collector has not applied his mind and has not brought out how the appellants were involved in the alleged offences and how they were liable to penalty. 16. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel, the Bench asked the learned SDR to first show the proof of service of the show cause notice(s) as time bar was a threshold point and then make further submissions....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at the submissions of the learned counsel have a strong force. The department has not been able to show that the show cause notice was served within six months of the date of seizure on the appellants. As such the goods were required to be released in terms of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the order of confiscation was liable to be set aside on this ground alone. 20. Even otherwis....