9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (8) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollector is concerned, the order of the Board was binding upon him, provided the goods were identical. Indeed, the Board's decision was in the case of the appellant himself. We do not, of course, wish to express any opinion whether the goods concerned in the order of the Central Board dated 5-4-1980 and the goods concerned herein are identical or not. That is a matter for the Collector or the appropriate authorities to decide. Allow these appeals and remit the matter back to the Appellate Collector for disposing of the same in accordance with law and in the light of the observation made hereinabove. - 2163 and 1758 of 1982 - - - Dated:- 26-8-1993 - B.P. Jeevan Reddy and S.P. Bharucha, JJ. [Order]. - These two appeals are prefer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not confiscated under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act. At that stage, the appellant approached the Delhi High Court by way of civil writ petition being CWP No. 2486 of 1981. In this writ petition, the appellant questioned the notice issued by the Government of India proposing to revise the order of the Central Board dated 5-4-1980 suo motu as well as the show cause notice dated 6-6-1981 issued by the Collector of Customs. By his judgment and order dated 16-3-1982, a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court quashed the notice given by the Government of India proposing the revision of the Central Board's order on the ground that it was barred by limitation. But so far as the show cause notice dated 6-6-1981 is concerned, the Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned Counsel for the appellant before us, viz., that the Collector was bound by the judicial order made by the Central Board of Customs and Excise, is concerned, there can hardly be any dispute about its correctness. If the goods which were considered in the order dated 5-4-1980 made by the Central Board and the goods which are the subject-matter of the appeal are identical, there is no doubt that the Collector was bound to follow the orders of the Board - unless, of course, there was an order of a higher authority or of this Court or of the High Court having jurisdiction over the territory wherein the goods were seized, to the contrary. So far as the Collector is concerned, the order of the Board was binding upon him, provided the goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
