JEEVARAJ Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by our brethren B. P. Singh and K. Jagannatha Shetty JJ. (see Jeevaraj v. Collector of customs and Central Excise [1993] 1 Kar LJ 167) under section 7 of the High Court Act formulating for our consideration the following questions, which read (at page 169) :

(2.) The questions as aforesaid it is said arose in the course of hearing of a series of writ appeals and writ petitions referred to in the referral order. As we see from the order of reference a contention appears to have been taken that in the absence of service of a valid notice under section 110 of the Customs Act, within the time prescribed by law, on the person concerned, not only the goods seized would have to be returned but the entire proceedings relating to confiscation and penalty would come to nought. Similar was the contention taken with reference to section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.

(3.) We have heard learned senior counsel, Mr. Vaidyanathan of the Supreme Court Bar, who appeared in support of the petitioners in Writ petitions Nos. 17552 to 17554 of 1984 and Sri Shailendra Kumar, learned senior standing counsel for the Union of India.