1994 (7) TMI 90

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oms authorities on May 26, 1969 and 28 packages of synthetic fabrics of foreign origin were seized. The seizure was made under Section 110 of the Act. By the order dated November 27, 1969 the Collector Customs extended the period for the issue of show cause notice prescribed under Section 124 of the Act by two months from the date of the order. Finally, the show cause notice in terms of Section 124(1)(a) of the Act was received by the appellant-firm on December 26, 1969. The Assistant Collector, Bombay by the order dated February 24, 1971 under Section 112(b) of the Act, confiscated the goods in dispute and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant. The appeal filed against the order of the Assistant Collector was dismissed by....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd the confiscation order to be valid on the following reasoning :- "The consequence is that the order pased by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise dated November 27, 1969 extending the period of six months provided in Section 110 by two months provided in Section 110 by two months from November 26,1969 is bad and illegal in view of the provisions of Section 110(2) of the Act. But the question then arises is whether the petitioner is entitled to return of the goods seized, once the order of confiscation is passed under Section 111 of the Act. So far as Section 110 is concerned it deals with the seizure of the goods and the return thereof. In other words if the said provisions are not satisfied the goods seized have to be returned....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and separate from the power of confiscation and imposition of penalty as provided in Sections 111 & 112 of the Act. The later provisions are not absolutely dependent on the provisions of Section 110 of the Act." 5. Charan Das Malhotra's case (supra) was followed by this Court in Chaganlal Gainmull v. Collector of Central Excise & Ors., 1990 (Supp.) SCC 527. The view taken by the High Court is, therefore, unexceptionable and we uphold the same. 6. Mr. Hardev Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that the notice under Section 110(2) being invalid, the provisions of Section 123 of the Act would not be attracted in the present case. According to him but for the presumption under Section 123 of the Act there is no m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct in the reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods, the burden of proving that they are not smuggled goods shall be — (a) in a case where such seizure is made from the possession of any person, — (i) on the person from whose possession the goods were seized; and (ii) if any person, other than the person from whose possession the goods were seized, claims to be the owner thereof, also on such other person; (b) in any other case, on the person, if any, who claims to be the owner of the goods so seized. (2) This section shall apply to gold, diamonds, manufactures of gold or diamonds, watches, and any other class of goods which the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette specify." 7. The condit....