9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (7) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The petitioner No. 1 Gopal Chadha claims to be a dealer in gold and gold ornaments. Petitioner No. 2 Ram Sumer claims to be an employee of petitioner No. 1. On 13-7-1990, the petitioner No. 2 Ram Sumer was apprehended by the officer of the Customs department at about 10.15 P.M. at Gorakhpur bus stand while he was on his way to Allahabad. On his search six pieces of gold were recovered from his langoth. He was also found to be carrying Rs. 1845/- in Indian currency. He was brought to the Customs office and again searched whereupon three slips mentioning the weight and the value of the gold were also recovered. He was examined by the officers of the Customs department and was alleged to have confessed that he purchased this gold from one Prem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the petitioners the goods in question were seized on 13-7-1990, while show cause notices dated 9-1-1991, were served on the petitioners on 18-1-1991, i.e., after the expiry of more than six months and, therefore, the gold in question had to be returned to the petitioners. He placed reliance on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Alka Watches Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India - 1983 E.L.T. 2116 (Allahabad) in which it was held that the show cause notice as contemplated by Section 124(a) has to be served within a period of six months prescribed under Section 110(2). For this view reliance was also placed on another judgment of this Court in Prem Nath Khanna v. Collector of Central Excise - 1987 (29) E.L.T. 9 (Allahabad). He referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a). 6.Learned Counsel also contended that the cash amount of Rs. 1845/- which even according to the department was not the proceeds of sale of any smuggled goods within the meaning of Section 121, was also confiscated and the Tribunal has not dealt with this question. The Tribunal's order is silent on the point. Learned Counsel referred to his written submissions filed before the Tribunal to show that some other points raised on behalf of the appellants have also not been dealt with in the Tribunal's order. It is not necessary to deal with them as patently the Tribunal has not dealt with the aforesaid two questions. Whether all the points raised in the written submissions were relevant will depend upon the grounds raised in the memorandum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
