TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (6) TMI 47
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w the order in appeal passed by the appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay on 13-4-1976. The appellate Collector of Customs had set aside the imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 1,000/- on the petitioner. The first respondent felt that the said order was erroneous and was required to be reviewed. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why the order of the appellate Collector of Customs should not be annulled. The petitioner showed cause. Ultimately, he impugned order was passed by the first respondent annulling the appellate order of the appellate Collector of Customs dated 13-4-1976 and restoring the order in original passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bhavnagar, dated 1-1-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not object to the confiscation of the seized gold. He, however, objected to the proposed imposition of penalty on him. It appears that the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bhavnagar amongst others, imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 1,000/- on the petitioner by his order dated 1-1-1975. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the appellate Collector of Customs at Bombay who allowed the appeal on 13-4-1976 and set aside the order of personal penalty. It is this order of the appellate authority which was sought to be reviewed by the first respondent in exercise of its powers under Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. As noted earlier, having given an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause against the proposed review,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al proceedings and hence, the impugned order at Annexure J is null and void. (2) That in any case, the suo motu proceedings were initiated by the first respondent beyond reasonable time and hence also, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. Having considered the aforesaid two contentions of the learned advocate for the petitioner, we have reached the conclusion that there is no substance in either of them for the reasons which we set out herein-below. 7. So far as the first contention is concerned, it must be kept in view that the sessions court's acquittal order is rendered in criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner for violation of the provisions of Section 135 of the customs act and Section 85 of the Gold ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms, Calcutta, A.I.R. 1962, S.C. 1898, to support his contention. In our view, the said decision proceeds on its own facts and is not applicable to the present case. In the case before the Supreme Court, criminal prosecution was launched against the Director of appellate company before the Supreme Court under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports Act, 1947 on the basis of a information alleged to have been received by the Chief Controller of Imports that the company was selling goods to various parties contrary to the provisions of the licence issued to the company to import goods. That there was a condition therein that imported goods were not to be sold. In the prosecution, the Director of the company was discharged by the first authority. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... supporting the first contention. In the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, no provision of law was interpreted and construed by the competent court against the department. On facts, the criminal court, in the light of the burden of proof which lay on the prosecution in such cases, found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the petitioner and acquitted him. That can certainly not be pressed in service for scuttling the departmental proceedings or for treating them as barred under any provision of law. As shown by us' earlier, Section 127 of the Act clearly indicates a contrary legislative intention. The first contention, therefore, has to be rejected. 10. So far as the second contention is concerned, it is ....