TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (7) TMI 76
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... where any goods are seized under sub-section (1) of Section 110 and if no notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of Section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized; provided that the period of six months may, on sufficient cause being shown, be extended by the Collector of Customs for a period not exceeding another six months. On August 27, 1970, prior to the expiry of six months from the date of seizure, the Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Chandigarh, on his own, by means of an ex parte order, extended the seizure period further by six months, i.e., up to 19-3-1971. Thereafter, on March 4, 1971, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant in accordance with the provisions of Section 124 of the Act informing him the grounds on which it was proposed to confiscate the goods and to impose on him a penalty, as well as affording him an opportunity for making representation in writing within a period of ten days against the grounds of confiscation or imposition of penalty mentioned in the notice. Opportunity was also given to the appellant in the said notice for his person....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....taken by his Court, holding that proceedings under Section 124 were independent of the provisions of Section 110 of the Act, and even though a person from whom the goods had been seized may become entitled to receive the goods back in view of the failure of service of notice within the period stipulated under Section 110(2) of the Act, still proceedings for confiscation under Section 124 could proceed. For the said reason, the High Court dismissed the writ petition leading the appellant to appeal to this Court. 6. It would, at this juncture, be apposite to take note of the two provisions, quoted hereafter :- "110. Seizure of goods, documents and things. - (1) If the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under this Act, he may seize such goods : Provided that where it is not practicable to seize any such goods, the proper officer may serve on the owner of the goods an order that he shall not remove, part with, or otherwise deal with the goods except with the previous permission of such officer. (2) Where any goods are seized under sub-section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of Section 124 within six months o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re rights of a person are adversely and prejudicially affected by an order made by an authority in a proceeding, such person is entitled to a predecisional notice irrespective of whether the proceeding is judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative in nature. Earlier in point of time in The Asstt. Collector of Customs and Others v. Charan Das Malhotra [1971 (1) SCC 697 = 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1477 (S.C.)], this Court observed that the Collector was not expected to propose the extension mechanically or as a matter of routine but only on being satisfied that facts exist which indicate that the investigation could not be completed for bona fide reasons within the time provided in Section 110(2) and that, therefore, extension of the period has become necessary. The Court also emphasised that the Collector cannot extend the time unless he is satisfied on facts placed before him that there is sufficient cause necessitating extension, in which case the burden of proof would clearly lie on the Customs authorities applying for extension to show that such extension was necessary. It was also pointed out that on the expiry of the period of six months, from the date of seizure, the owner of the good....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eriod of six months entitled the owner or the person concerned the possession of the seized goods. This obviously is so because the matter at that stage is under investigation. On launching proceedings under Chapter XIV, Section 124 enjoins issuance of a notice for which no period has been fixed within which notice may be given. The difference is obvious because this goes as a step towards trial. The ratio of this Court afore-quoted in Charandas Malhotra's case, thus settles the question afore-posed and the answer is that these two Sections 110 and 124 are independent, distinct and exclusive of each other, resulting in the survival of the proceedings under Section 124, even though the seized goods might have to be returned, or stand returned, in terms of Section 110 of the Act, after the expiry of the permissible period of seizure. 9. The Bombay High Court in M/s. Mohanlal Devdanbhai Choksey and Others v. M.P. Mondker and Others [AIR 1977 (Bombay) 320 = 1988 (37) E.L.T. 528 (Bom.)], as is evident, correctly appreciated and followed Charandas Malhotra's case supra. In so doing, it has observed : "It should not be overlooked that the object underlying Section 110 is not initiation ....