9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (8) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities on the 27th November; 1670. According to the petitioner, the said notice was received by him on the 20th March, 1971. Before the receipt of that notice however personal hearing was given to the learned advocate of the petitioner on several dates and ultimately on the 13th January, 1972 the additional Collector of Customs passed an order confiscating the seized goods and the currency notes and also imposed a personal penalty of ₹ 5,000/ -. It is this order of confiscation which is challenged before the in this application. He learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended before me that the order of confiscation is bad as the notice to show cause was given beyond the time prescribed by law and conse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner and the postal authorities returned it with the remark, out of Calcutta-hence left'. Mr. P. N. Chunder, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the customs authorities contended that the notice in the instant case was served within the time prescribed by law. In support of this contention Mr. Chunder relied on Section 153 of the act which provides as follows: any order or decision passed or any summons or notice issued under this Act, shall he served- (a) by tendering the order, decision, summons or notice or sending it by registered post to the person for whom it is intended or to his agent; or (b) if the order, decision, summons or notice cannot be served in the manner provided in clause (a), by affix ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the contrary and the notice was deemed to have been effectively served within six months as required by Section 124 of the Act, read with Section 110 (2) thereof. 5. With respect I am in entire agreement with their Lordships of the madras High Court. The facts in that case, as I have already said, are almost identical with the facts of the present case. That being so, I am of the view that the notice in the instant case was served within the statutory period of six months and the order of confiscation of the seized goods cannot be challenged on that ground. The contention on behalf of the petitioner therefore fails. In the result, this application fails and is dismissed. The Rule is discharged. All interim orders are vacated. There wil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
