9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (12) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... listed for hearing. We heard Shri Jeshtmal on the stay applications. We also heard Shri Mondal. On hearing both sides we have decided to take up the appeals themselves and accordingly the appeals were taken up for hearing. 3. Since these appeals involve common questions, they are clubbed together and hence this common order. 4. By the impugned order, the learned Collector, among other things, had passed the following order :- I impose a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on S/Shri Pandurang Tukaram Deokar and Pundlik Raghunath More under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. I also impose a penalty ofRs. 2 lakhs on S/Shri Pandurang Tukaram Deokar and Pundlik Raghunath More under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. I impose a pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e also received back as undelivered by the postal authorities on 27-7-1988. The appellants were reported to have approached the DRI and sought for copies of the show cause notices. They were stated to have been furnished with the copies of show cause notices. Since the copies of the documents on which the department relied on were not supplied along with the copies of the show cause notices, the appellants on 1-8-1988 made a request to the Collector for furnishing the copies of the documents. They received a communication dated 16-9-1988 from the Collector intimating that he had already passed the order. Shri Jeshtmal submitted that on the face, the order of the Collector is bad in law and requires to be set aside. Hence the appellants ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss. The Collector could not have been unaware of the fact that the date on which the hearing notice was issued on 16-6-1988, all the appellants were under detention under COFEPOSA. One would have expected the Collector to send the notices of hearing to the Supdt. of Jail, in which the appellants were lodged. There is considerable force in the contention of Shri Jeshtmal that the Collector s order is bad in law for not complying with the mandatory requirements of law. This is a clear case of violation of rules of natural justice also. On this ground alone the Collector s order, in so far as it relates to the present appellants are concerned, is liable to be set aside. It is strange that the Collector imposed a penalty on two persons jointly. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
