TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 619
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ates that although the said concern is registered with the Goods and Services Tax Department in the name of his wife, he is responsible for carrying on the day-to day affairs of the concern. 3. On 20.02.2021, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) had stopped the petitioner's car on NH-24. The said vehicle was searched and five gold bars weighing 1000 grams each were found. The said goods were seized by the said officers under Section 110 of the Customs Act. A panchnama for the said seizure was drawn up on the same date. 4. Subsequently, an appraiser appraised the said goods (five gold bars of 1000 grams each) at a tariff value of Rs.2,15,57,250/- (Rupees two crores fifteen lacs fifty seven thousand two hundred and fifty only). The market value of the said goods was determined at Rs.2,34,00,000/- (Rupees two crores thirty four lacs only). Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 16.08.2021 was issued, inter alia, to the petitioner. 5. Subsequently, on 14.10.2021, the respondents returned four gold bars, which were seized on 20.02.2021. The controversy, thus, relates to a single gold bar of 1000 grams, which continued to be retained by the concerned authoritie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d contention. They contended that the order passed in the case of Pradeep Khandelwal v. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) & Anr. (supra) was on a concession made by the counsel appearing in that case and that the said decision was not a binding precedent. 11. Ms Narain and Mr Harpreet Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that Section 110(1D) of the Customs Act does not require any notice to be served on the person from whom the goods are seized. Therefore, respondent no.1 could not be faulted for concluding the proceedings under Section 110(1D) of the Customs Act, without any notice to the petitioner. 12. Sub-section (1D) of Section 110 of the Customs Act was introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 (Act 13 of 2021) with effect from 28.03.2021. Prior to the insertion of the said Sub-section, the proper officer was required to make an application to a Magistrate under Section 110(1B) of the Customs Act, for the purposes of certifying the correctness of the inventory; taking photographs of the goods in presence of the Magistrate; and to draw representative samples of such goods. 13. Sub-sections (1A), 1(B), (1C) and (1D) of Section 110 of the Customs Act are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is seized under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act. 15. In Ishwar Parasram Punjabi v. Union of India: 1990 (48) E.L.T. 224 (Del.), this Court had, inter alia, considered the question whether notice of proceeding under Section 110(1B) of the Customs Act was required to be issued to the owner or the persons from whom the goods were seized. In that case, the Court had rejected the Revenue's contention that no notice of proceedings under sub-section (1B) was required to be issued as neither Sub-section (1B) nor Sub-section (1C) of Section 110 of the Customs Act mandated issuance of any such notice to be served to the owner or the person from whom the goods are seized. The relevant extract from the said decision reads as under: "15. From a cumulative reading of these provisions it is clear that the preparation of inventory or other steps contemplated under sub-section (1-B), to be certified by the magistrate, such as taking of photographs or drawing of representative samples or certifying the correctness of the photographs, etc. related to the main object of disposal of the property in terms of section 110 (I-A) of the Customs Act. 16. Mr. Herjinder Singh has a valid argument when h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n upon the concerned authority to adopt a procedure for disposing of any matter, where any party is affected or is likely to be affected, after notice to show cause, and hearing. This principle has been extended by the Supreme Court even to the provisions of the COFEPOSA Act in the case of Harbans Lal (supra) where it was held that even though there were no provisions for production of evidence by the detenu in rebuttal, before the Advisory Board, but such a right must be implied unless there was an express prohibition. 19. Even in relation to the provisions of the Customs Act, there is a decision of a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, reported as AIR 1968 Calcutta 28, (Charandas Malhotra v. Assistant Collector of Customs and Superintendent Preventive Services and Others), with reference to the provisions of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, in respect of the notice under section 124 of the Act, providing that period of six months in issuing such a notice may be extended further by the Collector of Customs for a period up to 6 months, on sufficient cause being shown. It was held that since the extension of time for issuing show cause notice, affects vested rights of the per....