9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (2) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the officers of the Central Excise, Kanpur Collectorate after a search of the applicant s residential premises at Etawah, U.P. The search was conducted between the last week of March, 1969 and April, 1969 and the gold seized under the provisions of Sections 8 and 16 of the Gold Control Act, 1968. A SCN was issued to the present applicant on 6-9-1969. In his reply to the SCN dated 15-11-1969 the present applicant challenged the validity and the legality of the search. The Collector, who adjudicated the matter, by order dated 5/18-12-1973 confiscated the gold and imposed a penalty of Rs. one lakh upon the petitioner (present applicant). The present applicant filed an appeal against the said order of the Collector before the Gold Control ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has been stated that since the Revision Authority in the matter was now the CEGAT, the application was being filed before the North Regional Bench of the CEGAT for considering the matter in the light of the observations made by the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in its order dated 30-3-1993. 4. Shri K.P. Bhatnagar, ld. Counsel who appeared for the applicant submitted that the issue in the present application revolved around the question of limitation for issuing SCN under Section 79 of the Gold Control Act as it stood on 6-10-1969, the date on which the SCN was issued. According to the ld. Counsel the seizure of the gold was made between 26-3-1969 and 3-4-1969. The six months period provided in the second proviso to Section 79 of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the second proviso to Section 79 of the Gold Control Act. The Department had in its counter-affidavit filed before the Hon ble High Court stated that the SCN had been signed by the Collector on 10-9-1969 and the date at the end after the signature of the Collector should be taken as 10-9-1969 and not 4-10-1969. There was no dispute on the point that the notice was issued on 6-10-1969 and served on the present applicant on 9-10-1969. The counter-affidavit further stated that in the notice it had been stated that the period for issuing the SCN had been extended and, therefore, the notice could be served within the extended period of six months. On the basis of the submissions and the affidavit/counter-affidavit filed by the parties, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounter- affidavit, nor the date of passing of the order has been mentioned. This being the fundamental ground of challenge to the confiscation proceedings, it was obligatory upon the respondents to come out with a clear case and file the copy of the order by which limitation is alleged to have been extended or to have at least given full details thereof including the date of passing of the order. For the reasons best known to the respondents, no clear averments in this regard have been made in the counter-affidavit." 5. After discussing the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Manick Chand v. Union of India, 1984 (18) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.) = AIR 1984 SC 1249 in which the provisions of Section 79 was considered, the Hon ble High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether the notice had been given within the period of limitation. 6. It is seen from the record of the proceedings before the Tribunal after the Revision Application was filed before the Tribunal that when the matter came up on 19-4-1996 the Tribunal had directed the Commissioner to make available the relevant case file for verifying the question whether the time for issue of notice was extended by the Collector. The matter was adjourned to 3-7-1976. Subsequently, the hearing was adjourned to 27-9-1996, 31-10-1996, 16-12-1996, 14-2-1997, 14-4-1997, 5-8-1997, 21-8-1997, 18-9-1997 and 24-9-1997. On 24-9-1997 when the matter was taken up, the ld. DR submitted that even with their best efforts the Department had not been in a position to obt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Hon ble Allahabad High Court while disposing of the Writ Petition had directed the Revisionary Authority to consider whether really any order of extension of period of limitation by the Collector of Central Excise had been passed and if such an order exists, whether it is a legal and valid order in the eyes of law. The authority shall also ascertain the exact date of seizure of the articles and also the date of giving notice as that would be relevant for finding out whether the notice had been given within the period of limitation . The point which are not in dispute are that the last date of seizure was 3-4-1969. The date of issue of SCN as per the first page of the notice of show cause was 6-9-1969. Paragraph 7 of the SCN had stated th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
