TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1969 (5) TMI 21
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The petitioner is one of the two partners in firm New India Watch Company, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. Ambassador Car No. DLJ 2916 was purchased by that firm in 1965. On April 5, 1968 the petitioner and one Madan Lal were apprehended by the Customs Preventive Staff, New Delhi, in car No. DLJ 2916 after they had been noticed by the said staff coming out of a house in Safdarjang Extension occupied by B.K. Jain, Flight Engineer of the Indian Airlines Corporation. The raid party found a brief-case in the car and on opening the same recovered 60 bars of gold weighing 10 tolas each and bearing foreign markings. Some currency notes and other papers were also recovered. As the petitioner and his companion could not produce any evidence for the law....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riod for issue of Show Cause Notice is necessary for conducting further enquiries in this case. "I, therefore, grant extension of time for issue of Show Cause Notice up to the end of February 1969. Sd./- R. Prasad Collector "1. Shri Rajeshwar Prashad, C. 2/22, Model Town, Delhi., 2. Shri Madan Lal, S/o Shri Kahan Chand, 21/41, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. 3. Shri B.K. Jain, B-2/65, Safdarjung Extension, New Delhi. 3.On January 18, 1969 the petitioner served a notice through his counsel on the Collector of Customs and Central excise for the release of the car in question. As no action was taken....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under the Act, he may seize such goods. There follows a proviso to the above sub-section but we are not concerned with that. Sub-section (2) is material and reads as under :- " 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 of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be retuned to the person from whose possession they were seized. Provided that the aforesaid period of six months may, on sufficient cause being shown be extended by the Collector of Customs for a period not exceeding six months." Section 110 contains sub-sections (3) and (4) but is is not necessary to reprod....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitioner and Mr. Brij Bans Kishore on behalf of the respondents, and are of the view that the petition should be accepted and a direction issued for the return of the car to the petitioner on the short ground that there is no order extending the period of six months for giving a Show Cause Notice for confiscation of the car under the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 110 of the Act. The order, which was made by the Collector on September 9, 1968 has been reproduced earlier and its perusal makes it plain that it relates only to the 600 tolas of smuggled gold with foreign markings. The fact that there was reference to the gold and not to the car while giving the description of the goods, shows that the said order did not relate to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m whose possession they were seized. Where there is no order for extension of time in respect of any particular goods seized by the Customs Staff and no Show Cause Notice is issued within six months the Customs authorities are not entitled to retain those goods after the expiry of six months, from the seizure of goods. The order of extension is an essential requisite of the retention of the goods after the period of six months. In the absence of such an order and a Show Cause Notice, the retention of the goods after the expiry of six months period by the Customs authorities would be not in accordance with law. 7.In the above view of the matter, it is not necessary to go into any other contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 8....