9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This is an appeal filed by the department against the impugned order dated 23-7-1996 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi. 2. Respondents remained absent inspite of notice. Accordingly, we proceed to pass an order after hearing Shri K. Panchatcharam, learned JDR for the Revenue. 3. The Officers of the Customs Range, Bhinmal seized two video Cameras, two Battery Chargers, three Ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter confiscated the goods and also imposed a penalty. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication on the ground that the adjudication order did not discuss the facts regarding actual date of service of the notice. The Deputy Commissioner in the readjudication proceedings had passed an order with the following findin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gned show cause notice was issued after the expiry of the time limit. Hence, this appeal by the department. 5. It was the contention of the department that notice was sent to the noticee within a period of six months from the date of seizure. The department relies upon the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Segu Lebbai Segu Alavudeen Ismathsaibu v. Union of India reported in 1996 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ads as under :- Where any goods are seized under sub-section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of Section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. Provided that the aforesaid period of six months may, on sufficient cause being shown, be extended by the (Commissioner of Cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
