VENUS TRADERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two applications are for early hearing. With the consent of the parties appeals were taken up.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the appellants placed orders on foreign sellers for the supply of certain electronic games/toys. The goods were supplied and bills of entry were filed. The question was whether the goods could be cleared without special import licence or not. It was found that it required licence. The only question that has been raised before me is whether the impugned orders are wrong when the orders do not mention which Sub -section of Section 112 is attracted. The learned Counsel, Shri Jerry Lewis, invited my attention to the judgment of the Tribunal in Balvir Singh v. Collector of Customs - 1991 (56) E.L.T. 64 where in identical circumstances with that of the instant case the Tribunal has held, following the judgment of the Madras High Court in B. Lakshmi Chand v. Govt. of India - 1983 (12) E.L.T. 322 that failure to indicate the particular Sub -section to Section 112 will vitiate the adjudication order.

(3.) AS against this Shri S.V. Singh, learned DR, invited my attention to the judgment of the Tribunal in following cases - Dilip Kumar Dev v. CCE, Calcutta - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 366, Agarwal Udyog v. CCE, Kandla - 1994 (72) E.L.T. 133 for the proposition that no mention in clause in the show cause notice not relevant when source of power could be validly traceable under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act.