1995 (3) TMI 427

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Act. This notice was issued on September 1, 1980, to which the appellant replied by letter dated October 10, 1980, praying for supply, inter alia, of the reasons recorded. The gist of the reasons recorded seems to have been supplied by the Competent Authority, by letter dated January 1, 1981. It appears that no action was taken by the Competent Authority or his office, till after about a period of eight years ; a notice of hearing was issued on December 7, 1988. It appears that on December 26, 1988, some hearing took place as per the impugned order, and the "person affected" undertook to file a written explanation for the capital contribution in the relevant concerns which were the subject-matter of proceedings. It is not clear from th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ced, so that the Competent Authority who is to finally pass an order, deals with whatever submissions are made before him, and is able to keep a control over the proceedings. But what we find is that some Inspecting Officer took up the files even when the hearings were fixed by notice under section 7 of the Act. In this case, the Competent Authority who went to hold a camp at Kasargod, did not even bother to look up the file, because what we find is a memorandum recorded by the same Inspecting Officer on January 6, 1989, to which the Competent Authority only appended his counter-signatures. Again nothing happened for a period of about four years, till another hearing notice was issued to the appellant under section 7 by letter dated May ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ural justice were given the go-by by the Competent Authority while declining the request of the appellant. We say so particularly in the background of the manner in which the said Competent Authority who had not proceeded for one year after taking notice of the case and his predecessors had been sleeping over the matter for a period of more than 12 years after issuing notice under section 6(1) of the Act, and in that context the appellant could very legitimately ask that at least he should know as to what he was now required to do, and that he may be given some time for this purpose. That by itself calls for our interference, but even on reverting to the merits, we find that the subject-matter of forfeiture is neither any movable or immo....