1995 (10) TMI 102 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the appeal against the order passed under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Legality, validity, and correctness of the order extending the period for issue of show cause notice.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Appeal:
The appellants contended that the order dated 14-7-1995 by the Commissioner of Customs extending the period for issuing a show cause notice by six months is an order passed by him in his capacity as an Adjudicating Authority. This contention is supported by the ruling in the case of Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. Charan Das [1983 (13) E.L.T. 1477 (SC)], where the Supreme Court held that the right to restoration of seized goods is a civil right which accrues on the expiry of the initial six months and is defeated upon extension. The Supreme Court emphasized that the power under the proviso to Section 110(2) of the Customs Act is quasi-judicial, requiring an opportunity of being heard before the extension of time is granted. The Tribunal concluded that the order passed under Section 110(2) is indeed a quasi-judicial order and hence appealable under Clause 1(a) of Section 129A.

2. Legality, Validity, and Correctness of the Order:
The Tribunal examined the facts of the case, noting that the investigation revealed involvement in smuggling activities, with Sh. Vinod Goel identified as the main person behind the illicit transactions. The Commissioner of Customs extended the period for issuing a show cause notice due to the lack of cooperation from Sh. Vinod Goel and his employee, Sh. K.K. Sharma, who were both essential for clarifying the position regarding the seized goods. The appellants argued that the seized goods were duty-paid and that the show cause notice was void as it was not signed by the Commissioner of Customs, Bombay. However, the Tribunal found that the submission regarding the duty-paid nature of the goods was premature and should be considered after the issuance of a proper show cause notice under Section 124(a). The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that he had applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and satisfied himself that sufficient cause existed for extending the period for issuing the notice. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order and rejected the appeal.