9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (5) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded the shop premises of the goldsmith and seized various quantities of gold including the gold sent by the petitioners. Two show cause notices were issued by the Customs Authority. One was under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 1968 Act) and the second was under the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 1962 Act). The petitioners replied to the said show cause notices. The adjudication proceedings were held by the Assistant Collector of Customs who passed the following order on 30th November, 1977: "Having regard to the facts, circumstances and evidence as discussed above, I confiscate the seized gold bar of foreign origin primary gold and other items i.e. items No. 2, 4 and 5 of the Search List un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plication the petitioners prayed for the following: "(a) the instant petition be admitted. (b) the records of adjudication and exhibits may be called for (c) the hearing of the revision application be made at the Customs Office at Calcutta and pray further that (d) the application be allowed upon hearing the revision applicants; (e) seized property in entirety be ordered to be returned to the revision petitioners (f) the entire amount of fine which has been paid by the two petitioners be remitted and order for the refund of the full amount to the petitioners herein be made". 7. By virtue of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980 the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) was set up. All revisional applications/appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvolved nor did he consider the law on the subject. 11. As seen earlier the petitioners were held guilty in the original order only for a contravention of the 1968 Act and the action of confiscation and penalty was under the 1968 Act. In the revision petition the prayer was for a return of the goods confiscated and for refund of the fine. This could have reference only to the 1968 Act. To state therefore that no grievance had been made under the 1968 Act is manifestly wrong. 12. Secondly the facts constituting the offence under the 1962 Act and 1968 Act are identical. The petitioners had admittedly preferred the Revisional Application within time. Periods of limitation in preferring Appeals are fixed with a view to weed out the laggardl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasonable." 16. In 1972 the Supreme Court in The State of West Bengal v. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality reported in AIR (1972) S.C. 749 held : "If a party had acted in a particular manner on a wrong advice given by his legal Adviser, he cannot be held guilty of negligence so as to disentitle the party to plead sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act." In an earlier part of the judgment the Supreme Court had held : "From the above observation it is clear that the words "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to a party." 17. In 1981 a Division Bench of this Court in Debabrata Mukherjee v. Ka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
