1976 (4) TMI 235

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s ordered that in view of the financial position of the appellant it would be sufficient if he deposited a sum of Rs. 300 on account of penalty. This having been done, judgment is now pronounced on the merits. 3. At the outset, it is necessary to deal with the question of limitation. The memorandum of appeal was received in the Registry of the Board on 1-8-1974. The order under appeal purports to have been despatched on 27-4-1974. The appellant had filed an affidavit to the effect that the order was not served on him personally though it indicates that it was to be sent to him. However, a copy of the order was served on the learned advocate for the appellant on 30-4-1974. Excluding this date, the memorandum of appeal was received in the Re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is not necessary to decide the issue finally whether service on the advocate would constitute service on the appellant, for, even assuming that it is so, after having heard the parties, I consider that in any event this is a proper case for the Board to exercise its powers of examining the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned order under sub-section (2) of section 32. This power can be exercised even after the expiry of the period of 90 days. 9. I turn now to the facts. The case for the department is as follows. On the basis of certain information, the premises of the appellant were searched and two foreign aerograms addressed to him were seized. These were from one Nagappan of Malaysia. On interrogation, the appellant state....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t and recovered from his residence. It is not possible to accept the suggestion that they had been planted upon him. The reference to the 10 kailies, the telephone number and the coded instructions are consistent only with the appellant having been asked to receive money from an unknown person. No other possible explanation of the letters has been attempted. The question as to the person in whose name the telephone number in question actually stood is immaterial and by itself would not establish that the appellant's statement was not genuine. 13. I see no reason for not accepting the correctness of the facts contained in the appellant's statement of 14-11-1972 made to the Enforcement Officers. This, however, does not necessarily establish ....