TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (12) TMI 220
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Unit searched the residential premises of Srikanta Haldar at Krishnapur Colony, Lalgola, Dist-Murshidabad, which resulted in the recovery of Indian currency of Rs. 10,100/-, 3 pcs. of live bullets and 5 paper chits believed to be incriminating documents relating to the smuggling of the goods. It is alleged that the appellant in Appeal C-366/89, i.e. Srikanta Haldar was not found present during the said search and in his absence his sister-in-law Smt. Dipali Haldar, wife of the appellant in Appeal C-367/89, Sushanta Haldar, was examined and in her presence and in presence of two independent witnesses the said Indian currency and the other articles were seized. 2. The Department did not issue a Show Cause Notice within six months period, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion are : (i) Is the impugned order sustainable ? (ii) Whether the Show Cause Notice issued after the expiry of six months is valid in this case ? (iii) Whether the seizure of Indian currency of Rs. 10,100/- and other articles is proper ? (iv) What order? 6. The Collector of Customs has relied upon his Order-in-Original No. 10/88 dated 3-2-88 wherein the appellant in Appeal C-366/89, i.e. Srikanta Haldar is a party. The entire evidence which he has discussed has not been brought forth in the Show Cause Notice at all and the Show Cause Notice also has not proceeded on that basis. Therefore, the Collector's Finding that the seized currencies are the proceeds of the smuggling activity and sale proceeds of smuggled goods is not sustainable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are extraneous material and hence the findings are not sustainable in law. 9. Therefore, seizure of the Indian currency in this case has to be set aside. The Collector has further drawn an analogy that the appellants could not have saved so much money from their petty business, is also not sustainable. The conclusion has been arrived by him on the basis of the query he made at the time of personal hearing from Smt. Dipali Haldar, wife of the appellant in Appeal C-367/89, i.e. Sushanta Haldar. 10. Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 clearly stipulates "Where any goods are seized under sub-section (1) and notice in respect thereof given under clause (d) of Section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... period, service of such notice may not be effected on the person concerned in sufficient time to enable the Collector to make the order of extension before that period expires. Service of the notice may be postponed or delayed or rendered ineffective by reason of the person sought to be served attempting to avoid service of notice or for any other reason beyond the control of the Customs authorities. In that event, it would be open to the Collector, if he finds that sufficient cause has been made out before him in that behalf to extend the time beyond the original period of six months, and thereafter, after notice has been served on the person concerned, to afford a post-decisional hearing to him in order to determine whether the order of ....