9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (12) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l) Act were issued to the petitioners' addresses in Madhya Pradesh. The show cause notices were dispatched to all the petitioners by registered post on 22-2-1985. All the notices were returned by the Postal Authorities due to non-availability of the addressees. The show cause notices were thereupon sent to the Assistant Collector, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh on 18-3-1985 for effecting service on the three petitioners. The show cause notices were? ultimately got served on the parties on 18-5-1985. That all the petitioners were served with show cause notices on 18-5-1985 is not in dispute. 3. The only question that arises for decision in this case is, whether the service of notices on the petitioners was done in accordance with the second proviso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid down by the Supreme Court in Manick Chand Paul and Others v. Union of India and Others (AIR 1984 SC 1249). 6. A statement of objections is filed on behalf of the respondents in which it is explained how the notice could not be served on the parties concerned before the expiry of six months period. It is also the case of the department that the Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum, had granted extension up to 16-8-1985 for service of show cause notices on the parties and that this was communicated to the parties. The petitioners have also stated that the said order was communicated to the parties and was received by them on 24-5-1985. But, the question that remains to be decided is, whether there was proper service of notice on the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hers v. Charan Das Malhotra (AIR 1972 SC 689) which arose under Section 110 of the Customs Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Customs Act is in para materia with Section 79 except that it contains "upon sufficient cause being shown" in the proviso and the extension being limited to a period of six months. The Supreme Court was considering whether the person concerned should be heard before granting extension under Section 110(2). The Supreme Court held that an opportunity of being heard ought to have been given to the respondent before order for extension was made. 9. Though on the facts of the present case there was one day's delay in serving the notices on the petitioners, still that delay is fatal having regard to the mandatory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
