9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (2) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C.W.P. No. 1404 of 1980) as well as the residential premises of Subhash Chander, Proprietor of Subhash Embroidery Works situate at House No. 515, Chowk Neemwala, Ludhiana. As a result of these searches, synthetic fabrics bearing foreign markings were recovered from both places. Twenty-six pieces measuring 412.30 metres valued at Rs. 6,955/- were recovered from the business premises and nine pieces measuring 270 yards and 19 pieces of Saris (18 white and 1 blue) measuring 109.25 yards (total valued at Rs. 3,740/-) were recovered from the residential premises. The synthetic fabrics recovered were notified under Section 11B of the Customs Act, 1962, (hereafter the Act). Subhash Chander could not produce any evidence documentary or otherwise sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty was reduced from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 2,000/-. The petitioner have assailed the orders Annexures P. 13, P. 14 and P. 15 in C.W.P. No. 1404 of 1980. 3. Prem Chand Kapur petitioner in C.W.P. No. 1650 of 1980 also filed an appeal against the order of the Deputy Collector Annexure P. 13 claiming that the fabrics other than 19 pieces of Saris belonged to him. His appeal as also the one filed by Messrs Subhash Embroidery Works was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by consolidated order dated February 17, 1976, (Annexure P.2). His revision as also that of Messrs Subhash Embroidery Works were disposed of by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India vide consolidated order dated April 7, 1980, (Annexure P.3). Prem Chand Kapur has assai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied. The point for consideration is if 19 pieces of Saris recovered from the residential premises are fabrics or are Saris. The Deputy Collector in the impugned order Annexure P. 13 has held that Sari pieces without fall, border or embroidery are as good as fabrics. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that pieces of the size of a Sari cut from the roll per se would convert the item from fabrics to Saris. The learned counsel for the respondents has contended that it is not so and reliance has been placed on Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Sector 11, Kanpur 1962 (13) S.T.C. 1031 and Pravin Brothers v. The State of Gujarat, 1964 (15) S.T.C. 478. 6. In Lakshmiratan's case (supra) it has been. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roidery which were recovered from the residential premises. The petitioner in C.W.P. No. 1404 of 1980 requested the Deputy Collector to summon those persons as witnesses. The Deputy Collector wrongly declined to summon them as defence witnesses and further directed the petitioner to make arrangement for their production. The petitioner (Subhash Chander) was thereby denied reasonable opportunity to produce his defence. The impugned orders are liable to be quashed on that ground. Reliance has been placed on Sita Ram Aggarwal v. The Union of India and others, 1967 P.L.R. 160. This contention is also without merit. In the statement made by Subhash Chander immediately after the search of the business premises he stated that the items recovered h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontravention on the part of the petitioner, the statements of Prem Chand Kapur and others who were desired to be summoned as defence witnesses were hardly relevant. The petitioner nowhere stated that before acquiring the recovered items he had taken reasonable steps as specified by rules in this behalf. The petitioner was, therefore, rightly held to have contravened the provisions contained in Section 11D of the Act. Subhash Chander and Ashok Kumar have both stated in their statements recorded on April 6, 1973, that they had not entered the items recovered in the relevant registers. During enquiry they did produce some registers in support of their plea that the items recovered had been entered in the registers, but the Deputy Collector fou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pur has argued that the Deputy Collector having been informed that the fabrics belonged to the petitioner (Prem Chand Kapur) erred in not issuing a show cause notice to him and for this reason the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. I am not impressed by this contention. The Deputy Collector has given sound reasons for holding that Prem Chand Kapur was not the owner of the fabrics. Prem Chand Kapur learnt on April 7, 1973, that his fabrics had been seized. He did not file any claim. He remained quiet till the Deputy Collector confiscated the seized items. In view of the fact that the Deputy Collector came to the conclusion that the fabrics did not belong to Prem Chand Kapur, the question of issuing him a show cause notice did not aris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
