9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (11) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pledgee of the seized goods. The goods were lying in the godown and bonded store rooms at the mill premises and the Bank was in possession of the same under a cash credit arrangement with the appellants. The Excise Authorities also seized several books of accounts, documents, vouchers belonging to the appellants and lying at the mill premises. 3. On 8 April, 1963 the appellants made an application under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court at Bombay. Respondent No. 1, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise on 16th September, 1963 made an application to the Collector of Central Excise respondent No. 5 for extension of time for giving notice under Section 124(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On 20 September, 1963 an order of extension for a further period of six months was made. The appellants asked for a writ of mandamus directing the Excise Authorities to release and hand over the goods and books of accounts, documents and vouchers to the appellants. 4. Two of the grounds advanced by the appellants for the release of the goods and documents were these. First, the Excise Authorities did not issue a "show cause notice" within six mon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for two months was applied for on 3 January, 1964. The Collector passed an order extending the time on 20 February, 1964 a month after the extended period had expired on 19 January, 1964. The other contention in that case was that Malhotra got no chance to resist the application for extension, and, therefore, the orders were in violation of natural justice. 8. This Court held that the right to have the watches restored to Malhotra accrued on 19 January, 1964 and it could not be defeated by an order for extension passed on 20 February, 1964 after the first extended period lapsed on 19 January, 1964. It was also held that Malhotra was entitled to be heard before the extension was made. This Court in Malhotra's case, (1971) 3 SCR 802 = 1983 E.L.T. 1477 (supra) held that the decision of the Mysore High Court on which the Bombay High Court relied was wrong. 9. Counsel for the Excise Authorities contended that in these appeals no notice under Section 110 of the Act was required to be given by reason of special agreement between the appellants and the Excise Authorities during the pendency of the writ petition in the High Court. It was submitted that because of the agreement there was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Civil Appeal No. 1132 of 1971 the Excise Authorities on 27 and 29 April, 1963 seized 432 pieces of grey cotton fabrics and 136 bales containing cotton fabrics and fents. The Excise Authorities also seized books of accounts and documents of the appellants on those two dates. On 20 September, 1963 the Excise Authorities passed an order under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act extending the period of giving a "show cause" notice. The appellants on 10 May, 1963 filed a petition in the High Court and asked for release of the goods on grounds similar to the other appeal. The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellants. 14. The only contention advanced in this appeal was that order dated 20 September, 1963 was passed without giving an opportunity to the appellants to be heard. It was, therefore, said on behalf of the appellants that on the ruling of this Court in Malhotra's case, (1971) 3 SCR 802 = 1983 E.L.T. 1477 (supra) the order dated 20 September, 1963 was illegal. 15. In Civil Appeal No. 1132 of 1971 the respondents on the other hand contended that the appellants were not entitled to be heard by reason of agreements embodied in consent orders identical to those in Civil A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 124(a) of the Act within six months of the seizure of the goods the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. Section 124(a) of the Act states that no order confiscating any goods or imposing any penalty on any person shall be made under Chapter XIV of the Acts unless the owner of the goods or such person is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds of confiscation or imposition of penalty. Section 110(2) of the Act contains a proviso that the period of six months may on sufficient cause being shown be extended by the Collector of Customs for a period not exceeding six months. 19. In Civil Appeals Nos. 1133 and 1109 of 1971 the order of extension on 20 September, 1963 was beyond the period of six months from the date of seizure. In Civil Appeal No. 1132 of 1971 the order was in time. Therefore, the orders for extension of time to serve the notice under Section 124(a) of the Act could have been exposed to infirmities of limitation as to time (though we do not express any opinion upon it) and observance of principles of natural justice but for the special agreement in the consent orders between the parties in these appeals. 20. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
