The said numberice, having been served on the appellant after the statutory period of six months, was invalid and illegal.
The seizure was made under Section 110 of the Act.
The factory premises of the appellant firm were raided by the Custom authorities on 26 5 1969 and 28 packages of synthetic fabrics of foreign origin were seized.
The appeal filed against the order of the Assistant Collector was dismissed by the Appellate Collector.
Finally, the show cause numberice in terms of Section 124 1 a of the Act was received by the appellant firm on 26 12 1969.
The Assistant Collector, Bombay by the order dated 24 2 1971 under Section 112 b of the Act, companyfiscated the goods in dispute and also imposed a penalty of Rs 50,000 on the appellant.
This appeal, by way of special leave, is against the judgment of the High Court.
It was further companytended that the numberice being invalid, the appellant was entitled to the return of the seized goods under Section 110 2 of the Act and further the Custom authorities were debarred from holding the adjudication proceedings in respect of the goods in dispute.
By the order dated 27 11 1969 the Collector Customs extended the period for the issue of show cause numberice prescribed under Section 124 of the Act by two months from the date of the order.
The appellant challenged the orders of the Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector by way of a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition with companyt.
It was companytended before the High Court that the goods in dispute were seized by the Custom authorities on 29 5 1969 and the numberice as companytemplated by Section 124 1 a read with Section 110 of the Act was given on 19 12 1969.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH, J. The question for our companysideration in this appeal is whether the provisions of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 the Act would be attracted in a case where the retention of the goods has become illegal under Section 110 2 of the Act because numbernotice as required under the said provision was served within the statutory period.
