TMI Blog1993 (7) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... REME COURT OF INDIA] thus settles the question afore-posed and the answer is that these two Sections 110 and 124 are independent, distinct and exclusive of each other, resulting in the survival of the proceedings under Section 124, even though the seized goods might have to be returned, or stand returned, in terms of Section 110 of the Act, after the expiry of the permissible period of seizure. - 1209 of 1981 - - - Dated:- 14-7-1993 - A.M. Ahmadi and M.M. Punchhi, JJ. [Judgment per : Punchhi, J.]. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, dated August 7, 1979, passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 4206 of 1973, raising an important question of law, whether Sections 110 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are inter se independent, distinct and exclusive or are they inter-woven, inter-connected and inter-playing, on the answer of which depends the survival or otherwise of proceedings for confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties, under Chapter XIV of the Act. 2. On March 4, 1970, Harbans Lal, the appellant herein, was arrested and a huge qua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iminary objection as to the vitiation first and not to proceed with the case under Section 124 of the Act, its initiation being void ab initio. 4. The legal stance adopted by the appellant was refuted by the Customs Authorities. The factual position was, however, not denied. Additionally it was pleaded that proceedings under Section 78 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 had also been initiated against the appellant within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 79 of the said Act. The seizure of goods thenceforth were suggested to be under the Gold (Control) Act, and thus it was pleaded that Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 was no longer in play for the purpose of holding the goods by the Customs authorities. On the legal question, it was asserted that the provisions of Section 110 and 124 were mutually exclusive; the former only compelling the return of goods to the person from whose possession they were taken, on the expiry of the original or extended period. So far as the goods in question were concerned, it was pleaded that those would have been returned to the appellant but for the proceedings under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 initiated against the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven an opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation or imposition of penalty mentioned therein; and (c) is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter : Provided that the notice referred to in clause (a) and the representation referred to in clause (b) may, at the request of the person concerned be oral." 7. As said before Section 110 is in Chapter XIII covering the subject of search, seizure and arrest. The Section operates during the stage of investigation. Section 124, hinted earlier, is in Chapter IV which covers the topic confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties. The subject of investigation and that of confiscations and imposition of penalties are ex facie exclusive of each other, the goal of each being different. A Constitution Bench of this Court in I.J. Rao, Asstt. Collector of Customs and Others v. Bibhuti Bhushan Bagh and Another [1989 (3) SCC 202 = 1989 (42) E.L.T. 338 (S.C.)] while interpreting Section 110(2) proviso of the Act has held that when wanting to extend period beyond six months in respect of seizure of goods, the Collector mu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... comes the question as to what is the fallout of the order extending time under sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Act being vitiated. Learned counsel for the appellant would have us hold that in face of that vitiation, proceedings under Section 124 get lapsed for they could not be initiated without the aid of Section 110. This argument, however, militates against the ratio of Charandas Malhotra's case supra and cannot be accepted. In the second half of paragraph 5 of the report of that case this Court observed :- "Section 124 provides that no order confiscating any goods or imposing any penalty on any person shall be made under this Chapter unless the owner of the goods or such person is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the goods or to impose a penalty. The Section does not lay down any period within which the notice required by it has to be given. The period laid down in Section 110(2) affects only the seizure of the goods and not the validity of the notice". (Emphasis supplied) In clear terms, it has thus been held that the period angle causing affectation under Section 110(2), would only pertain to the seizure of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apter XIV which contains substantive provisions relating to confiscation of goods etc. and imposition of penalty. Under Section 124 issue of a show cause notice prior to passing an order of confiscation or imposition of personal penalty is mandatory, but the language of Section 124 is clear and precise and no restriction or limitation or even a fetter is imposed as regards the time when proceedings may be initiated by issue of a show cause notice." We observe that this is the correct view of the matter. 10. In Jeevaraj and Others v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Bangalore and Others, [1985 (22) E.L.T. 44 (Kar.)] a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court rightly held that the invalidity of an order made under Section 110 does not in any way affect the validity of the proceedings for confiscation and imposition of penalty initiated and completed under Chapter XIV of the Act. On the same reasoning the Punjab and Haryana High Court's view in Muni Lal v. Collector, Central Excise, Chandigarh [AIR 1975 (Punjab and Haryana) 130], later affirmed by the Letter Patent Bench of that Court in appeal, is the correct view of the matter and the learned Single Bench rightly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
