TMI Blog1995 (3) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,000/- and Rs. 2,60,915/- Indian currency seized from the petitioner stated to be the amount involved in the contravention in question should not be confiscated to the Central Government under Section 63 of the Act. The said memorandum also informs the recipients including the petitioner of the said memorandum that in issuing the said proceedings reliance is placed inter alia on the documents listed in the annexure thereto that the originals of the said documents will be made available to the party or their lawyer or to their authorised representative to inspect, if they so desire at the place mentioned after fixing an appointment with the Deputy Director, in addition to inviting their attention to proviso to Rule 3 of the Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules, 1974 hereinafter referred to as `the Adjudication Rules and the rights available thereunder. 2(a) The Petitioner approached this Court by filing the above writ petition on more than one ground, but at the time of hearing, the challenge was confined by the learned Senior Counsel to only a few of the grounds to which a reference will be made hereinafter. The main ground of challenge directed against the Memorandum in q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... copies of the documents seized from Raman Chelliah were not given are stated to the false and they were also said to have been given along with other annexures to the memorandum and that there is no need to intimate to the petitioner about the further course of action taken against the said Raman Chelliah. As for the claim about the defective and irregular service of the memorandum, it is contended for the respondents that the impugned memorandum was duly sent by registered post with acknowlegement due to the petitioner and the postal acknowledgement card for the same has been signed by his wife and, therefore, the service of the impugned memorandum upon the petitioner is quite in accordance with law. It is also stated that the petitioner also sent a telegram to the Deputy Director, Madras confirming the receipt of the memorandum and, therefore, the impugned memorandum does not call for any interference of this Court at this stage of the proceedings. 3. W.A. No. 851 of 1994 has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 22-6-1994 in W.P. No. 8326 of 1994 whereunder the learned Judge has chosen to summarily dismiss at the stage of admission the writ petition fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 994 in W.P. No. 1280 of 1994 reported in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 826 (Mad.) (K.M.A. Abdul Kabeer v. The Special Director Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi and Another) and concurred with the view taken therein that notification empowering persons not below the rank of the Assistant Director of Enforcement would be a sufficient answer to the objection raised on behalf of the appellant before the learned Judge. As for the second ground of challenge about the Special Director issuing the memorandum in his capacity as Special Director only, the learned Judge again adverted to the decision in W.P. No. 1280 of 1994 (supra) and the notification dated 22-9-1989 published in the Gazette of India, specifically authorising the Special Director to be an Officer of Enforcement for the purposes of enforcing the provisions of the Act and to exercise the powers under Section 50 of the said Act as constituting sufficient answer. As for the plea raised based on the earlier admission of W.P. No. 3487 of 1994, the learned single Judge chose to reject the same on the ground that the issues raised stood already decided finally in W.P. No. 1280 of 1994 and, therefore, there is no scope for admitting the writ p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nless the Memorandums under challenge in these proceedings have been shown or disclosed to have been issued by an Officer of the rank and also with the designation of the Adjudicating Officer in the proceedings themselves the impugned proceedings are liable to be struck down is of no substance. In the light of the notifications referred to and relied upon for the respondents as also by the learned single Judge, the ground of challenge lacks any merit. In the Notification F. No. 174/2/89-TC(E), dated 22-9-1989, the Central Government appointed Shri S.S. Renjhan invoking the powers of Section 4(1) read with clause (o) of Section 3 of the Act to be an Officer of Enforcement with the designation of Special Director of Enforcement for the purposes of enforcing the provisions of the said Act. The said notification also in exercise of powers conferred under Section 50 of the Act empowered to adjudicate cases of contravention of any of the provisions thereof other than Section 13, clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 18 and clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 or of any rule, direction or order made thereunder. Similarly, the Notification No. 14/93 F. No. 1/1/93-Ad.DC S.O. 696(E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made to drag on the proceedings or delay the adjudication process and thereby thwart the action in law against the appellant and the petitioner in these cases. The impugned proceedings, in our view, do not leave either scope or room for any doubt that they have been issued in exercise of the powers of adjudication conferred upon the duly and properly constituted Adjudicating Officers, though the Memorandums themselves do not purport to describe those officers as Adjudicating Officer. Of course, the authorities could have been more discreet and careful in properly describing their identity but the failure on their part in this regard, in our view, do not in any manner undermine their authority to issue the impugned memorandums or pursue the adjudication process further in accordance with law. The challenge in this regard shall stand rejected as of no merit of acceptance. The plea based on the irregular service of the notice under challenge upon the petitioner in W.P. No. 3487 of 1994 also proceeds upon a surmise and misapprehension. Rule 10 of the Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules, 1974 provides for more than one manner of service of which one is by delivering or tendering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the petitioner and that this constitutes violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, the impugned memorandum is liable to be struck down is equally devoid of merit. In the counter affidavit, it is denied that two items of annexures have not been served. For the purpose of the present case it is unnecessary to enter into the controversy and adjudicate upon the factual position as to whether the same has really been served or not. So far as the case on hand and particularly the one which is the subject matter of writ petition before us is concerned, it is only at the stage of show cause notice. The memorandum itself disclosed that the original annexures on the basis of which the memorandum came to be issued are available for perusal of the petitioner or his counsel or authorised agent. If really the copies in respect of two annexures have not been issued and served upon the petitioner, there is every scope to obtain the same, inasmuch as nothing precludes the petitioner from pointing out the same and seeking for copies of the same either before the perusal of the originals, if so desired or even without such perusal and on or after perusal of the originals. It is o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
