TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 876X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shil Kaushik, Advocates. ORDER We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The main point raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the seizure of the goods in question was done on 23.03.2011 and no show cause notice was issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, within a period of one year. As a result, the goods which were released on 06 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve discussion that the provision of Section 110(2) in so far as the prescription of a time-limit for holding seized goods, is deemed mandatory; the consequence of not issuing a show cause notice within the period or extended period specified is clearly spelt out to be that the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized? (apparent from a combined reading of Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above terms; no costs. In view of the above, it is clear that since the show cause notice was not issued within the stipulated period, the effect would be that the seizure order would not apply any further and that the goods in question which were released provisionally and subject to conditions under Section 110A of the said Act shall be deemed to have been unconditionally released. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id affidavit, it has been made clear that the goods in question had been imported and finalized by Mr Rakesh Divedi using the name of Mr Ravinder Singh?s sole proprietorship concern-Kore Koncepts (the petitioner hereinafter). Mr Ravinder Singh made it clear that the goods belong to Mr Rakesh Divedi and that it was Mr Rakesh Divedi who had pursued the matter and who had also deposited the entire cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
