9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (5) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 12 of Central Excises Salt Act, 1944 read with Notification No. 68/63-C.E., dated 4-5-1963 as amended. 2. It has been submitted in the appeal that extending the period of six months for the issue of show cause notice can be ordered by the Collector only on being satisfied that the show cause notice could not be issued within the normal period of six months for valid reasons. The order allowing extension cannot be passed mechanically or as a matter of routine. Firstly the show cause notice for the extension of the period for the issue of the actual show cause notice in respect of the seized goods which have been issued by an authority other than Collector. As a notice in question had been issued by the Collector himself it was bad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upreme Court in 1992 (59) E.L.T. 201 (SC) = AIR 1988 SCC 867 in Indru Ramchand Bharwani and in the Harbanslal case, 1993 (67) E.L.T. 20 (SC) = AIR 1993 SC 2487 = 1993 (48) ECR 219. He pleaded that the appeal be dismissed. 5. I have considered the submissions. I have gone through the record and the authorities cited. The Supreme Court judgment in Harbanslal v. Collector of Central Excise Customs, Chandigarh has settled conclusively the scope of Sections 110 and 124 of Customs Act. Paragraphs 9 and 10 on pages 224-225 of ECR Vol. 48 are reproduced below :- The Bombay High Court in M/s. Mohanlal Devdanbhai Choksey and Others v. M.P. Mondkar and Others [AIR 1979 (Bombay) 320], as is evident, correctly appreciated and followed Charandas M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eedings may be initiated by issue of a show cause notice. We observe that this is the correct view of the matter : 10. In Jeevanraj and Others v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Bangalore and Others - [1985 (22) E.L.T. 44 (Karnataka)], 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 IV of the Act. On the same reasoning the Punjab and Haryana High Court s view in Muni Lal v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh [AIR 1975 (Punjab Haryana) 130], late affirmed by the Letters Patent Bench of that Court in appeal, is the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during an investigation, of the material collected in the case against him. Consequently, while notice may be necessary to such person to show why time should not be extended he is not entitled to information as to the investigation which is in process. In such circumstances, the right of a person, from whose possession the goods have been seized, to notice of the proposed extension must be conceded, but the opportunity open to him on such notice cannot extend to information concerning the nature and course of the investigation. In that sense, the opportunity which the law can contemplate upon notice to him of the application for extension must be limited by the pragmatic necessities of the case. If these considerations are kept in mind, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
