1985 (3) TMI 277 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the appeal filed by Kashmira Singh was time-barred.
2. Whether the service of the Order-in-Original on Kashmira Singh was valid.
3. Whether the adjudication proceedings against Kashmira Singh were conducted properly.
4. Whether the entire adjudication proceedings should be quashed due to lack of proper service and procedural irregularities.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the appeal filed by Kashmira Singh was time-barred:

The Board dismissed Kashmira Singh's appeal as time-barred, assuming the service of the Order-in-Original on 14-5-1979 when it was pasted on the door of his house in Village Malluwal. The appeal was filed on 12-6-1980, beyond the statutory period of three months. The Tribunal found that the Board adopted a manifestly erroneous approach, as Kashmira Singh had never personally given his address as Village Malluwal, and the Customs authorities proceeded on an incorrect assumption.

2. Whether the service of the Order-in-Original on Kashmira Singh was valid:

The Tribunal examined the issue of service and found that the Customs authorities had knowledge that Kashmira Singh was in custody under COFEPOSA during the relevant period and that he resided in Amritsar, not Village Malluwal. The attempt to serve by affixation at Village Malluwal was deemed meaningless and not valid service. The Tribunal highlighted that the Customs authorities should have served the order at the Amritsar address, as indicated by the endorsement on the registered post.

3. Whether the adjudication proceedings against Kashmira Singh were conducted properly:

The Tribunal noted that the entire adjudication proceedings were conducted ex parte without proper service of the show cause notice on Kashmira Singh. The Customs authorities relied on the assumption that Kashmira Singh refused the registered post, which was not substantiated with proper certification from the jail authorities. The Tribunal accepted the contention that under the Punjab Detenues (Conditions of Detention) Order, 1974, all communications to a detenu must be transmitted through the Superintendent of Jail, and the alleged refusal did not meet this requirement.

4. Whether the entire adjudication proceedings should be quashed due to lack of proper service and procedural irregularities:

Given that Kashmira Singh had no knowledge of the adjudication proceedings and the show cause notice was not properly served, the Tribunal concluded that the entire proceedings were unsustainable. The Tribunal emphasized that the benefit of the doubt should be given to Kashmira Singh, and in light of his death, the proceedings could not be remitted for a de novo decision. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the adjudication order and set aside the Board's order dismissing the appeal as time-barred.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, quashed the adjudication order, and set aside the Board's order, citing procedural irregularities and lack of proper service on Kashmira Singh. The decision underscores the importance of proper service and adherence to procedural requirements in adjudication proceedings.