Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 1989 (6) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1989 (6) TMI 71 - HC - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the penalty imposed under Rule 126L(16) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962.
2. Validity of the initiation of adjudication proceedings under the Defence of India Rules, 1962 after their repeal.
3. Consistency of the penalty with the provisions of the Gold (Control) Ordinance.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Penalty Imposed under Rule 126L(16) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962:
The writ petition challenged the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on the petitioner under Rule 126L(16) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, which was affirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities. The petitioner argued that since the seizure was not effected under Rule 126L, the gold and gold ornaments were not liable to confiscation under Rule 126M, and no penalty could be imposed under Rule 126L(16).

2. Validity of the Initiation of Adjudication Proceedings under the Defence of India Rules, 1962 after Their Repeal:
The petitioner contended that the Defence of India Rules, 1962, being a temporary measure, were repealed on June 29, 1968. Therefore, any proceedings initiated under these rules after their repeal were unauthorized. The petitioner also argued that the imposition of penalties for the same transactions under both the Customs Act and the Defence of India Rules was barred by law.

3. Consistency of the Penalty with the Provisions of the Gold (Control) Ordinance:
The petitioner relied on the Division Bench judgment in Union of India v. Haribhai Vithalji Soni and the judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Ramesh Chander v. Superintendent, Customs and Another. These judgments interpreted the provisions of the Gold (Control) Ordinance and the Defence of India Rules, highlighting that actions taken under the repealed rules could not be considered valid under the new ordinance unless explicitly saved by the ordinance. The petitioner argued that the penalty imposed was inconsistent with the provisions of the Gold (Control) Ordinance and was therefore without jurisdiction.

Judgment:
The court held that the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on the petitioner was inconsistent and unjustified, relying on the Division Bench judgment in Haribhai Vithalji's case and the provisions of Section 117 of the Gold (Control) Ordinance. The court noted that the imposition of the penalty was inconsistent with the provisions of the ordinance and therefore liable to be set aside. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was set aside. The rule was made absolute to the extent indicated, with no order as to costs.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates