9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner challenges the order passed by the Dy. Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Jaipur dt. 10th May, 1978 (Ex. 3) and the appellate order passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs dt. 23rd July, 1980 (Ex. 5) as affirmed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi vide its order dated 12th February, 1988 (Ex. 9). The review against which was dismissed by the CE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s 110(1) of the Customs Act read with Section 66 of Gold (Control) Act was also passed on 22nd February, 1977. 4.Thereafter, notice was issued to the petitioner on 3rd August, 1977 u/s 111 of the Customs Act read with Section 71 for showing cause against the proposed action of confiscating the contraband gold found in possession of the petitioner as well as three others connected with him and be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were liable to be returned to petitioner. He places reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in I.J. Rao, Assistant Collector of Customs and Ors. v. Bibhuti Bhushan Bagh & Anr. [1989 (42) E.L.T. 338 (S.C.) = AIR 1989 S.C. 1884 in support of his contention. 6.The decision in I.J. Rao's case, we are of the opinion, is of little assistance to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances narrated a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was handed over to the Customs Authorities. The seizure order under Customs Act came into existence only on 22nd Feb., 1977. There was no order of seizure u/s 110 of the Customs Act prior to 22-2-77. Undoubtedly, notice showing cause against the proposed action of confiscation was issued within six months on 3rd August, 1977. 8.In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no factual foundation exists ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
