9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (8) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plated under Section 124(a) of the Act within six months of the seizure of the goods, and since that was not done, they were liable to return the seized goods. The petitioners therefore claimed that the matter remained pending with the respondents and further proceeding before them was liable to be set aside and a direction be issued for the return of the seized goods to the petitioner No. 1. 3. The case of the respondents, on the other hand, was that the goods were smuggled item and did not belong to petitioner no. 1 and had been rightly seized. Further that the notice under Section 110(2) had been duly given and the respondents were entitled to continue the proceedings against the petitioners and were not liable to return the seized goods. 4. Two principal questions arise in this case : Firstly, whether the seizure was illegal, as the officers had no reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation under the Act. Secondly, there was no notice as contemplated under Section 110(2) of the Act. The latter question raised two subsidiary questions viz. what is the meaning to be given to the words `notice in respect thereof is given under Section 110(2) of the Act' and sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mons were issued on the 19th September, 6th October and 20th October, 1981, and the petitioners were aware of the pending proceeding and as such were aware of the notice given under Section 110(2) of the Act. The respondents' case further is that the show cause notice was issued on 25-2-1982 by respondent No. 3 and the same was served on the petitioners by the officers of respondent No. 4 (Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Meerut). On a further elucidation, it transpired that the notice was not served either on petitioner No. 1 or petitioner No. 2, but had been served on one Anil Kumar Gupta, who was said to be an agent of the petitioners, on 27-2-1982 orally. 10. It is apparent from the above that there is a dispute as to the date of the seizure of the goods and about the service of the notice. While the petitioners' case is that the seizure was effected when the goods were being taken from Delhi to Meerut, the respondents' case was that it was seized only on the 11th of September, 1982 and a Panchnama was prepared. In our opinion, nothing much turns on this point. Whether the goods were seized on the 29th of August or 11th of September, 1981. The notice is said to have been g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said period by six months on sufficient cause being shown. It is, therefore, clear from the above that whenever goods are seized by the Customs authorities with the object of confiscating the goods or imposing penalty, a show cause notice has to be given to the owner of the person from whose possession the goods were seized, and such a notice had to be served within six months from the date of the seizure. 11. A pertinent question arises here as to the meaning of the word `given' in the phrase `notice in respect thereof is given'. Whether the passing of an order directing issue of a notice is sufficient? Or does it contemplate service of the said notice on the owner or the person from whose possession the goods were seized? An argument was raised on behalf of the respondents that an order was passed for the issue of notice as contemplated under Section 110(2) read with Section 124(a) of the Act, and this fact was known to the petitioners and it was tantamount to the giving of the notice. In other words, the contention was that even if the notice was not served on the petitioners by registered post or even directly, the very fact that the petitioners were aware of the proceedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e person to whom it has to be given the giving is not complete. The main object of giving the notice under Section 27(3) is to make it possible for the Councillors to so arrange their other business as to be able to attend the meeting.........." 13. The Division Bench of the Gujart High Court held :- "The whole object of giving notice is to inform the person concerned of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the goods or to impose a penalty and to give him an opportunity to make a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice and he must be given reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter." We are in entire agreement of the above view. The giving of the notice would be complete, in our opinion only when it reaches the party concerned. In other words, the notice has to be tendered to the party. Of course, the party can be served when the notice is sent by registered post correctly addressed and even service on the agent of the party would be deemed sufficient. 14. In the present case, it was necessary to find out whether the show cause notice was served or in other words reached the petitioners. It would, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as such, there was no due service of notice or in other words, due notice had not been given to the petitioners. 16. In view of the above, it would not be strictly necessary to go into the question as to whether Shri Anil Kumar Gupta was the agent of the petitioner company or its Director, but since the question has been raised in arguments, we propose to deal with this matter also. Admittedly, Shri A.K. Gupta was not a Director of the company. Shri Anil Kumar Gupta was a shareholder of the company. There is no material on the record to show the Shri Anil Kumar Gupta was the agent either of the two Directors of the company or the agent of the company. The company is an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956, and the notice on the company is to be served on the principal officer of the company. It has not been shown that Shri Anil Kumar Gupta was the principal officer of the company. In this context, reference may be made to Section 153 of the Act, which provides for the service of order, decision or notice under the Act. Section 153 of the Act reads as follows : "153. Service or order, decision etc. Any order or decision passed or any summons or notice iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
