2001 (6) TMI 283

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2. Shri K. Kumar, learned Advocate submitted that a case was made against M/s. Hindustan Machine Tools, Bangalore and others including the present Appellants for indulging in smuggling of IB cases, dials and hand sets; that a separate case of smuggling the watch parts was made out against H.M.T. and others has been adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs, Meerut that 2823 numbers of wrist watches of elegance brand valued at Rs. 81,38,328/- said to have been manufactured out of smuggled wrist watch cases by H.M.T. and sent to Ramesh Kumar & Co., C & F Agent, for HMT watches, were seized by the Officers of Delhi Customs on 12-7-1991; that the present proceedings pertain to the seizure of those 2823 wrist watches; that the Commiss....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fence of smuggling of watch parts has already been imposed by the Commissioner of Customs, Meerut under Adjudication Order No. 35/95, dated 19-4-1994 which covered not only the goods seized but also 36250 elegance series of watch which had been cleared, from the factory; that the reasoning, given by the Commissioner in para 444 of the impugned Order to the effect that the goods seized at Delhi had already been cleared from the factory of HMT at Ranibagh, and hence, the value of the said goods not being realisable by the Meerut Collectorate were not covered by the show cause notice, is nothing but a queer finding; that the show cause notice issued by the Meerut Commissionerate and the subsequent Adjudication Order encompassed all the goods s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t if the exercise of power can be traced to a legitimate source the fact that the same was purported to have been exercised under a different power does not vitiate the exercise of the power in question. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of J.K. Steel Ltd. v. U.O.I., 1978 (2) E.L.T. J355 (S.C.). He also relied upon the decision in the case of N.B. Sanjana, Asstt. Collector v. Ellphinstone Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd., 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 399) wherein it was held that if the authorities have the powers to issue notice either under Rule 10 or Rule 9(2), the fact that the notice refers subsequently to a particular Rule which may not be applicable will not make the notice invalid. He, therefore, contended that in any case the penalty under....