A penalty of Rs.
1, therefore, without prejudice, vacate the order of the adjudication passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excice, Jabalpur.
The respondent then carried an appeal to the Appellate Collector under section 128 of the Act against the order of the Assistant Collector.
The appellant obtained special leave of this Court against the order of the High Court and hence this appeal before us.
Thereafter adjudication proceedings under section 122 of the Act were companymenced by the Assistant Col lector of Customs which culminated in the order of the Assistant Collector dated 30th June, 1969 by which the watches were seized and ordered to be companyfiscated.
250/ was levied on the respondent under section 112 of the Act.
Thereafter the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh assailing the numberice and praying that the proceedings started by the Assistant Collector even after the vacation of the order by the Appellate Collector be quashed.
The department appears to have interpreted the aforesaid order as an implied cider of remand and issued a fresh numberice to the respondent on the 27th July, 1972 and started fresh adjudication proceeding according to the implied direction of the Appellate Collector.
In order to appreciate the point in issue it may be necessary to ,extract the relevant portion of the order of the Appellate Collector which runs thus The adjudication, therefore, suffers for lack of principle of natural justice, inasmuch as adequate opportunities were number given to the appellant to defend his case.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 29th November 1976 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in P. No.
363 of 1978.
The fate of this case depends on the interpretation of the order passed by the Appellate Collector.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Emphasis, supplied .
On 27th February 1969 the respondent Pratap Rai was detrained at Jabalpur by the Customs authorities while he was travelling by the Bombay Janta Express.
C. Agarwala and Girish Chandra for the Appellant.
The Appellate Collector by his order dated 22nd February 1972 vacated the order of the Assistant Collector mainly on the ground that the Assistant Collector had number companyplied with the rules of natural justice.
On being searched as many as 23 wrist watches on which numbercustom duty was paid were recovered from his person.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 19th November 1976 by which the High Court quashed the numberice dated 27th July 1972 issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs and also quashed fresh adjudication proceedings started by him under the provisions of the Customs Act hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The plea taken by the respondent appears to have found favour with the High Court which allowed the petition, quashed the numberice as also the fresh adjudication proceedings.
Naunit Lal and Kailash Vasdev for Respondent.
32 of 1973.
