The appellant was informed on August 17, 1965 about this requirement by registered letter and was called upon to deposit the same within 14 days.
20,000/ on the appellant under s. 112 of the Act on the , round that he was the prime mover behind the smuggling of the ruby stone.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated August 24, 1966 of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at Delhi in Civil Writ No.
The appellant carried the matter in revision before the second respondent under S. 130 of the Act.
The District Magistrate by his judgment dated February 28, 1966 found the appellant and Rodrigues number guilty of the offence with which they were charged and acquitted them under s. 258 of the Code of Criminal Produre.
A personal penalty was also imposed on Rodrigues who had carried the ruby stone.
23, 1966 rejected the revision petition holding that the matter cannot be companysidered on merits and that the Government of India saw numberreason to interfere with the decision of the Central Board of Excise and Customs.
666 D of 1966.
As the registered letter was returned unserved, a companymunication was sent to the appellants lawyer, who was on record and it was acknowledged on October 18, 1965.
10,000/ as required by the first respondent.
Accordingly, he requested the first respondent to exempt him from making the deposit of the penalty imposed as a preliminary requirement for hearing the appeal.
Vaidialingam, j. The first respondent by his order dated December 7, 1965, rejected the appeal for number compliance with the provisions of S. 129 of the Act.
By the said order the third respondent companyfiscated the ruby stone and levied a personal penalty of Rs.
The appellant was given a further opportunity by the second respondent to deposit the sum of Rs.
The appeal was heard on this preliminary point regarding waiver of the deposit under the said section.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant filed an appeal on October 7, 1964 before the first respondent under s. 128.
From the order it is seen that as the appeal had been filed without depositing the penalty levied by the third respondent, the appellant was called upon on November 23, 1964 to deposit the same within 15 days and he was also further informed that his failure to deposit the penalty amount would render his appeal liable to be rejected for number compliance with the provisions of s. 129.
105 of 1967.
M. Singhvi and S. P. Nayar, for the respondents.
M. Trivedi, Swaranjit Sodhi and S. S. Shukla, for the appellant.
The appellant was called upon by the third respondent, Collector of Customs and Excise, Cochin, to show cause why he should number be penalised under s. 112 b of the Act and why he should number be prosecuted under s. 135 b of the Act.
Similarly another numberice was issued against one Rodrigues, with whom we are number companycerned in these proceedings.
Various grounds of attack against the legality of the demand numberice for depositing the penalty under s. 129 1 of the Act have been taken, both before the High Court in the writ petition as also in the petition filed in this Court for special leave.
The writ petition filed by the appellant to quash the orders of the first and second respondents was dismissed in limine by the High Court and it is the said order that is challenged before us.
The third respondent by his order dated July 18, 1964 held that the ruby stone in question was smuggled into India by Rodrigues at the instance of the appellant and in pursuance of an agreement entered into between them and that the ruby stone was handed over to Rodrigues by the brother of the appellant at Rangoon.
666 D of 1966 filed by the appellant to quash the orders of the first and second respondents dated December 7, 1965 and April 23, 1966 respectively.
The appellant made representations against the show cause numberice and he was also given an opportunity to companytest the allegations made against him.
As the appellant again failed to avail himself of this Opportunity, the second respondent by its order dated April.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. This appeal, by special leave, against the judgment and order dated August 24, 1966 of the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at New Delhi dismissing in limine Civil Writ No.
10,000/ was number deposited, the appeal was rejected for number compliance with the provisions of S. 129 of the Act.
