9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (12) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the appellant's banker the Central Bank of India. The appellant moved an application on 14 December 1964 under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the seizure. Rule nisi was issued and the respondents were restrained from removing the said 33 bales of cotton fabrics. On 17 May 1965 the respondent No. 1 the Collector of Central Excise passed an order extending by three months the period contemplated under section 124 of the Sea Customs Act, 1962 (sic) for giving a notice in writing informing the grounds on which it was proposed to confiscate the goods or to impose penalty. The extension was granted under section 110(2) of the Sea Customs Act, 1962 (sic). The appellant on 12 November, 1965 received a notice from the Collector, Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relevant Act. The society started weaving work for the appellant. The society obtained a licence as required by the Central Excise and Salt Act. The Excise department granted the society exemption from payment of Excise duty. Thereafter the Excise authorities issued a notice to the appellant in that case demanding a large sum of money as excise duty. It was alleged that it was so payable by the appellant as the latter got the goods from the society and removed goods from the factory of the Society without payment of duty. In the case of Hansraj Gordhandas three notifications were considered. They were dated 5 January, 1957, 31 July 1959 and 30 April 1960. The Supreme Court considered as to whether the appellant was entitled to exemption f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extension provided that in each case sufficient cause for extension is shown and the overall period does not exceed six months. In the light of that decision the contention of Counsel for the appellant is not correct. 7.There was another contention advanced by Counsel for the appellant that in any event the appellant was entitled to a notice before there was an extension. Arguments were not advanced but Counsel for the appellant only desired that contention should be noticed in the judgment. It is for that reason that this contention is noticed. 8.In view of the decision of the Supreme Court the present appeal is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court according to contentions of Counsel for both parties. The appeal is therefore a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
