9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r appeal - appeal dismissed. - GA No. 1452 of 2016, GA No. 1453 of 2016, APOT No. 153 of 2016 And W.P. No. 1142 of 2015` - - - Dated:- 29-1-2018 - Justice Aniruddha Bose And Justice Amitabha Chatterjee, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Somnath Ganguli, Ms. Manasi Mukherjee, Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. Dipak Prahladka, Advocate. ORDER The Court : The application being G.A. 1452 of 2016 is for condonation of delay. There is delay of 40 days in instituting the appeal. Mr. Prahladka, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner has agreed to disposal of this application for condonation of delay without filing of affidavits. We have gone through the application and in pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 shall not be extended for further period of 6 (six) months in accordance with the Proviso to the Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) The said noticee is allowed to appear in person or through his authorized representative on his behalf for personal hearing on 10.08.2015 at 15.30 hrs., before the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), at the office mentioned above with the documents in his support. Admitted position is that the notice was delivered to the writ petitioner on 11th August, 2015. According to the respondent/writ petitioner, he ascertained from the track record of the postal authorities that the notice was posted for delivery by speed post on 7th August, 2015. The writ peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms Authorities before us. Mr. Ganguli, learned counsel appearing for the Customs Authorities has mainly argued that under the statute there was no necessity of giving opportunity of hearing or for that matter notice to the person from whom goods have been seized for extension of time for issue of show-cause notice if such notice was given in this case, the same was a superfluous exercise and not a legal necessity. His further submission is that in the event the judgment under appeal is sustained, the extended period would also lapse and the entire exercise of the seizure would collapse. Mr. Prahladka, however, relied on a Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of I.J. Rao, Asstt. Collector of Customs And Others V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms necessary to reconcile the need to afford an opportunity to the person affected with the larger considerations of public interest. 15. Our attention has been drawn to Ganeshmul Channilal v. Collector of Cenral Excise and Asst. Collector, Bangalore, AIR 1968 Mys 89 where the High Court of Mysore has held that no notice is necessary to the person from whose possession the goods are seized when the Collector proceeds to consider whether the original period of six months should be extended. Reliance has also been placed on Sheikh Mohammed Sayeed V. Asst. Collector of Customs for Preventive (I), AIR 1970 Cal 134 which proceeds on the view that the Collector has to satisfy himself only subjectively on the point whether extension is calle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
