N BALAKRISHNAN Vs. JOINT SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Order of the Court is as follows :- THE present writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, rejecting the revision filed under Sec. 129DD of the Customs Act on the ground of limitation. Few facts would be necessary.

(2.) THE petitioner, on 10-2-1987, was intercepted by the Intelligence Officials while he was travelling to Singapore from Madras on suspicion that he was concealing some Indian/Foreign currency and/or some semi-precious stones on his person or in his baggage which he was carrying. On further examination, some semi-precious stones were found to have been concealed in his rectum, which were ultimately recovered. On the basis of this, a prosecution was launched against him and during that an order came to be passed for confiscation of those semi-precious stones, weighing 240 gms. A penalty was also imposed. This obviously was done under Sec. 111 of the Customs Act. This order, which was passed on 26-10-1987, was challenged by the petitioner by way of an appeal under Sec. 128 of the Customs Act. That appeal came to be decided on 22-6-1988 by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Customs House, Madras. THE only relief that was granted to the petitioner in that appeal was that the penalty was reduced from Rs. 4, 500/- to Rs. 1, 500/-. However, the action of confiscation was not interfered with. This order was subsequently challenged by the petitioner before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (in short "CEGAT") by way of an appeal. However, by its order dated 5-1-1990, the Tribunal took the correct view that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the subject on account of the applicability of proviso to Sec. 129A of the Customs Act providing that if confiscation order related to any goods imported or exported as baggage, the Tribunal could have no appellate jurisdiction in respect of an order passed by the Collector (Appeals). THE last sentence in the order of the Tribunal is very important. It reads under : 'since the Tribunal has no jurisdiction, the papers are directed to be returned to the party for presentation before the proper forum. (Pronounced in the open court.)." It is seen from the order that the party was represented by a Senior Advocate along with one other advocate. It seems that the petitioner thereafter chose to file a revision on 4-10-1990 before the Central Government under Sec. 129DD of the Customs Act, which was the only remedy available to him and the Joint Secretary to the Government proceeded to reject this revision on the ground of limitation. THE Joint Secretary has taken the view that the revision came to be filed with a delay of 820 days. THE Joint Secretary further took the view that under Sec. 129DD of the Customs Act, the revision could have been presented only within three months of the passing of the order and its presentation could be permitted after that period within a further period of three months thereof. Thus, the total limitation was six months. It is this order, which is challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) IN support of the proposition that Sec. 14 of the Limitation Act will not be fully available to the petitioner as it stood excluded in terms of Sec. 29(2) of the Limitation Act the learned Counsel for the respondents relied on a decision of the Supreme Court inThe Sales Tax Commissioner, Uttar Pradeshv.Parson Tools & Plants, Kanpur and more particularly to the following observations, which are to be found in paragraphs 17 and 18.