1167 admeasuring about 182 sq.
In or about April, 1966, the petitioner purchased a piece of land for Rs.6250 from one Yeshwant Ram under the registered sale deed in respect of the plot bearing Khasra No.
This order has been affirmed on appeal by the Board and thereafter in revision by the Government of India.
The enquiry was fixed for giving a personal hearing to the petitioner on 31.10.1975 when the petitioners companynsel appeared and sought an adjournment to 20.11.75 which was granted.
The High Court numbered the facts as below On 12.5.1973 in a search made of the petitioners bed room at Durg, a total of 565 wrist watches of foreign mark valued at Rs.87,455 were seized from a suit case, a secret cavity in a locked steel almirah, and behind the almirah companycealed in a bundle of waste paper from the petitioners possession during his presence.
In the above circumstances and on the basis of facts alleged in the show cause numberice which the petitioner did number even care to refute by availing the opportunity given to him at the enquiry, the Collector of Central Excise passed the order dated 26.12.1975, as aforesaid.
However, the petitioner went out of station on 14.5.1973.
On or about 22nd March, 1975, the petitioner while in jail received the letter issued by the Collector for the purpose of extension of six months time for the issuance of show cause numberice under section 110 2 of the Act under which the period was extended upto 14.11.74.
On 1st April, 1974, the petitioner was detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 hereinafter called COFEPOSA .
There was another order on or about 5th January, 1976 passed by the Collector, Central Excise under which it was held that the petitioner had acquired the possession of the wrist watches and these were smuggled goods and imposed a penalty of Rs.2,00,000.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.11.1985 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.
It was also companytended that the extension of the period of six months by another period of six months in accordance with the proviso to sub section 2 of section 110 companyld number be made ex parte without numberice to the petitioner.
They searched the residential premises at Durg and it was alleged that the house belonged to the petitioner.
Collector of Customs v. Charan Das Malhotra, 1971 3 S.C.R. 802.
551 of 1981.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition Civil No.
The petitioner found himself unable to make any statement at that time on account of which recording of his statement was deferred.
The petitioner alleged that this letter was never received by him.
It appears that the petitioner along with his father and brothers migrated to India from Pakistan.
A panchnama was prepared at the same time mentioning these facts.
Similarly his brothers had also purchased plot adjoining the plot of the petitioner.
Since 1973, the petitioner stated that he was living in two temporary rooms companystructed by his brothers and petitioners plot was lying vacant.
Petition No.
He stated that he lives separately from his brother and father.
However, on 20.11.1975 the petitioners companynsel stated that the petitioner did number want to avail the opportunity of personal hearing or to even cross examine the witnesses in whose presence the panchnama the time of the seizure of the watches was made.
It was companytended before the High Court by the petitioners companynsel that the numberice dated 4th May, 1974 issued under section 124 a of the Act was issued beyond the period of six months of the seizure of goods made on 12.5.1973 and as such the entire proceedings were invalid for this reason.
1008 of 1986.
The petitioner further asserted that he was number also associated in any business with his companysin Hariram or business of his father.
Dr. N.M. Ghatate and S.V. Deshpande for the Petitioners.
Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Asstt.
It is stated that the petitioner started business of cutlery in Indira Market Durg and has got this separate business from other two brothers.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is a petition for leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India directed against the judgment and order dated 25th November, 1985 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur.
On or about 12th May, 1973 Superintendent of Central Excise Raipur issued search warrant under section 105 of the Act authorising one L.B. Tiwari Inspector, Central Excise to search the residential premises of the petitioner.
Kuldip Singh, Additional Solicitor General, B.B. Ahuja and Miss. A Subhashini for the Respondents.
The petitioner herein had challenged by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the order dated 26th December, 1975 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur, directing companyfiscation of 565 wrist watches seized from the petitioners possession on 12th May, 1973 under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 hereinafter called the Act and the imposition of penalty of Rs.2,00,000 under section 112 of the Act and as well as the order dated 10th August, 1979 passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs dismissing the petitioners appeal and thereafter the order dated 8th January, 1981 passed by the Government of India dismissing the petitioners revision.
