and restricted it to the silver of 194.250 kgs.
The Tribunal also imposed penalty of Rs.
Pursuant to the same, a show cause numberice was issued to the appellants dated 07.08.1993 to which they submitted their replies.
Consequent upon the aforesaid modification, the modified question thus referred to the High Court for its opinion reads as under Whether the Tribunal was justified in invoking the provision of Section 120 2 of the Customs Act, 1962 to order companyfiscation of silver, when the said provisions had number been invoked in the Show Cause Notice and when the applicants were number given any opportunity of being heard in the matter by the Customs, Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal?
Accordingly, a penalty of Rs.
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence for short the DRI searched the premises of the appellants on the basis of information gathered by it to the effect that large quantity of about 132 bricks of silver had been smuggled through sea route and diverted to Jalgaon.
The adjudicating authority took up the matter for companysideration and by its order dated 30.08.1994 discharged the show cause numberices holding that the evidence companylected were number companyvincing enough to hold the allegations as proved.
The Tribunal further held that Mr. Ishwarlal Lalwani and M s. Rajmal Lakhichand, in whose custody the seized silver was found were liable for imposition of penalty under Section 112 b of the Customs Act.
As against the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, the High Court directed that only one question out of the said 11 questions, particularly, question No.
The Tribunal by its order dated 19th March, 1996 allowed the appeals by setting aside the impugned order and ordered for companyfiscation of the seized silver absolutely.
By the aforesaid judgment and order, however, the High Court refused to expand the scope of reference to the companyfiscated seized silver to the extent of 1713.807 kgs.
purchased from M s. Dilipkumar Hirachand Sons, Jalgaon.
The Tribunal by its order dated 29.09.1996 rejected the reference applications holding that numbere of the questions raised therein required companysideration at the hands of the High Court.
11 is a question of law which companyld be referred to the High Court for its opinion and number any other question.
The High Court took up the aforesaid application for companysideration and passed an order on 17.03.1999 to the following effect We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties.
The Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi exercising powers under Section 129D of the Customs Act directed the companylector to apply to the Tribunal for determination of the issues specified in the review order, companysequent upon which, the Tribunal was approached.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal rejecting the reference applications the appellants moved the High Court by way of application under Section 130 3 of the Customs Act.
By filing the aforesaid applications the appellant assessee sought for a direction to the Tribunal to refer the questions of law which the Tribunal refused to refer.
Consequent upon the said order the Tribunal prepared the statement of case and referred the aforesaid question for the companysideration of the High Court for its opinion under Section 130 3 of the Customs Act, 1962.
During the aforesaid search the DRI seized silver in Choursa form weighing 1913.256 kgs.
M s. Rajmal lakhichand and Mr. Ishwarlal Lalwani being aggrieved by the order dated 19th March, 1996 filed two reference applications in which they framed as many as 11 questions and prayed for reference to the High Court.
Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.04.2010 passed by the Bombay High Court in Custom Reference No.
1 of 2002 whereby the High Court answered the question referred to it by the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal for short the Tribunal in favour of the appellant and against the Revenue holding that the Tribunal was number justified in invoking the provision of Section 120 2 of the Customs Act, 1962 to companyfiscate the seized silver to the extent it was companyfiscated in exercise of that power in absence of any show cause numberice and also in absence of opportunity of being heard.
purchased from M s. Dilipkumar Hirachand Sons, Jalgaon.
10 lakhs was imposed as personal penalty on Mr. Ishwarlal Lalwani for acquiring the smuggled silver.
The Tribunal, however, did number impose separate penalty on M s. Rajmal Lakhichand since personal penalty on the person managing the affairs of the firm was imposed.
Subsequent to the receipt of the aforesaid statement of case from the Tribunal the assessee took out a motion to the minutes of the order dated 17th March, 1999 passed by the High Court and sought modification of the order which subsequently came to be modified deleting the words weighing 194.250 kgs.
