9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (12) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able belief that these had been imported into India in contravention of the prohibitions under the Import Export Control Act read with Section 11 of the Act; (d) Statements were recorded from Smt. Shri Pandey; (e) A show-cause notice dated 27-1-1970 was issued to Shri Pandey, after grant of extension of time for issue of notice by the Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad, as a special case, asking him to show cause why the seized watches should not be confiscated under Section 111 of the Act and why a penalty should not be imposed on him under Section 112; (f) A corrigendum dated 27-12-1978 was issued by the Assistant Collector, Lucknow, to show cause to the Deputy Collector, Allahabad, (g) After holding adjudication proceedings, the Deputy Collector, Allahabad, vide his order of 30-12-1978 (i) confiscated the seized watches under Section 111 of the Act; and (ii) imposed a penalty of ₹ 20,000/- on Shri Pandey under Section 112 of the Act; (h) The appellant preferred an appeal against the Assistant Collector s order which was disposed of by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Delhi vide his order of 8-4-1982, in which he :- (i) reduced the penalty on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayed, the appeal should be allowed and the penalty imposed on the appellant should be set aside. 8. Shir Ramanathan, Senior Departmental Representative, in reply to Shri Effendi s arguments, submitted that the seizure of the goods was effected on 12-5-1969 before the creation of the Patna Collectorate of Customs. Notification No. 35 of 4-3-1972 did not modify or cancel Notification No. 37 of 1-2-1963 appointing the Collector of Central Excise as the Collector of Customs for the Allahabad Collectorate in which fell Lucknow Division. Therefore, it was not correct to say that the 1972 notification had the effect of extinguishing the Allahabad Collector s jurisdiction to deal with the present case. The corrigendum merely had the effect of informing the appellant to show cause to the Deputy Collector in whose power the case fell. There was no irregularity or infirmity in this. He, however, agreed that the show cause notice was issued after the date of seizure of the goods. No opportunity was given to the appellant to show cause against the proposed extention. However, this would not vitiate the imposition of penalty on the appellants. For this proposition, he relied on 1974 MLJ - 88- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffected. 11. In A.I.R. 1975 Madras 43, the Madras High Court has held that non-issue of a show-cause notice within the period of six months contemplated by Section 110(2) does not take away the power of the department to proceed on with the confiscation of the goods and penalty proceedings under Section 124. The Court further held (in para 9) :- Nor are we able to accept the view of the learned Judge that a vested right is created in favour of the owner of the goods when a show-cause notice under Section 124 is not given within six months as provided for under Section 110(2). The effect of this decision is that the claim of the person from whose possession goods are seized, on the ground of non-issue of show-cause notice within the period of six months or in the event of extension of the notice period without his being heard, gets extinguished once the goods are properly confiscated under Section 124. 12. As against the above decision, we have the decision of the Calcutta High Court in 1982 E.L.T. 902 (Cal.) in Kantilal Somchand Shah and Another in which the Court held that since the provisions of Section 110(2) of the Act are mandatory, the goods retained unlawfully ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant to show cause to the Deputy Collector, in whose power the case fell, instead of to the Collector. There is no irregularity, impropriety or illegality in this. 15. The learned Counsel for the appellants did not address the Bench on the merits of the case (evidence adduced by the Department against the appellants) with respect to the findings that the seized goods would be liable to confiscation and the appellants to penalty. Nor does the memo of appeal advert to this aspect. We are, therefore, not required to go into this aspect of the matter. However, since the confiscation has been set aside by us, it would not follow automatically that the order levying penalty must also be set aside. Section 112 makes any person : (i) who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, or (ii) who acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Subject :- Nepal Jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs (Preventive) Patna - Clarification regarding. In forwarding herewith a copy of the Notification No. 35-Custom, dated 4th March, 1972, I am directed to say that the Collector of Customs (Preventive), Patna will have jurisdiction over the various districts of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal States as given in this Notification. He will adjudicate all the Customs cases falling within his power, if the goods have been seized by any Custom and Central Excise Officers in these Districts. Customs cases detected in the remaining Districts of the States will be adjudicated by the Collector of Customs and Excise concerned in these States. It is clear from this that the Collector of Customs, Patna was to adjudicate Customs cases falling within his power if the goods had been seized by any Customs or Central Excise Officer in the District specified in Notification No. 35/72. It follows, therefore, that Customs cases which fell in the power of the lower authorities (such as the Deputy Collector, in this case) did not have to be adjudicated by the Collector of Customs, Patna. The lower authorities would have continued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diction. It is axiomatic in law that if a later enactment, notification or order is so repugnant and inconsistent with the provisions of an earlier one that the two cannot stand together, the earlier is abrogated by the latter. When, therefore, the Collector of Customs (Prev.), Patna had been appointed to exercise jurisdiction over the District of Lucknow, it cannot be that the Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad continued to exercise any such jurisdiction specifically vested in the Collector of Customs (Prev.), Patna. The divestiture of his jurisdiction in so far as Lucknow is concerned is complete when the Collector of Customs (Prev.), Patna had been appointed to exercise jurisdiction over Lucknow. Nor does the Notification No. 35-Cus. make any reservation for the continuance of the jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad. It does not say that the Collector of Customs (Prev.), Patna will also concurrently exercise jurisdiction along with the Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad. 23. The same applies to the Deputy Collector of Customs, Muzaffarpur. Even if till 24-2-1978, the jurisdiction of the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad may be assume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
