9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has agreed to disposal of this application for condonation of delay without filing of affidavits. We have gone through the application and in particular, paragraphs 4 to 11 thereof. We are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for which the appellant could not prefer the appeal within prescribed period. We accordingly condone the delay in filing the appeal. We are taking up the appeal and the application together for hearing. On consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, Mr. Prahladka has waived of service of notice of appeal. All other formalities are also dispensed with on consent of the learned counsel for the parties for making the appeal ready. On 19th February, 2015, the respondent-writ petitioner was detained and the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ack record of the postal authorities that the notice was posted for delivery by speed post on 7th August, 2015. The writ petition, out of which this appeal arises was instituted mainly questioning the legality of action of the Customs Authorities in proceeding with hearing for extension of time, for which notice was not received by the writ petitioner within time. Various other grounds were taken in the writ petition but it appears this was the main point on which the case was argued before the First Court. The learned First Court allowed the writ petition by a judgment and order delivered on 9th February, 2016. The learned First Court held:- "The Court: The petitioner challenges an order of August 13,2015 passed by the Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of I.J. Rao, Asstt. Collector of Customs And Others Versus Bibhuti Bhushan Bagh And Another (AIR 1989 SC 1884) to contend that such notice is a legal necessity. He has relied on paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 of the said Report in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held:- "14. We have said that notice must go to the person, from whose possession the goods have been seized, before the expiry of the original period of six months. It is possible that while notice is issued before the expiry of that period, service of such notice may not be effected on the person concerned in sufficient time to enable the Collector to make the order of extension before that period expires. Service of the notice m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Collector has to satisfy himself only subjectively on the point whether extension is called for. In Karsandas Popatlat Dhineja v. Union of India, 1981 ELT 268 (Guj) the High Court defined the implications of the use of the words "on sufficient cause being shown" in a statutory proceeding. None of these cases convince us that the person from whose possession the goods have been seized is not entitled to notice of the proposal to extend the period. 16. In our opinion, the person from whose possession the goods have been seized is entitled to notice of the proposal before the Collector of Customs for the extension of the original period of six months mentioned in S.110(2) of the Customs Act, and he is entitled to be heard upon suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
