1988 JTR(All) 178
1988 18 ECR 639 ; 1988 38 ELT 19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V. K. Khanna and R. K. Gulati, JJ.
MUSIC TIME ELECTRO COTTAGE - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 980 Of 1987
Decided On : 04/05/1988
The central legal point established in the judgment is the possibility of separating a case into two proceedings and the agreement of the parties for separate proceedings.
Act Referred :CUSTOMS ACT : S.111, S.112
Customs Act - Joint Show Cause Notice - Jurisdiction
Fact of the Case:
A preventive party raided the business premises of two firms and seized goods alleged to be of foreign origin. A joint show cause notice was issued to both firms for confiscation of seized goods and imposition of penalty under the Customs Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the writ petition after considering affidavits from both parties, where they agreed to separate proceedings against them. The court directed the Additional Collector to issue a corrigendum separating the case into two within a specified time.
Issues: Jurisdiction of serving a joint show cause notice, possibility of separating the case into two proceedings, agreement of the parties for separate proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the agreement of the parties to separate the proceedings and the concession made by the Department's counsel to issue a corrigendum separating the case into two.
Final Decision: The writ petition was finally disposed of, and the Additional Collector was directed to issue a corrigendum separating the case into two within a specified time.
Customs Act - Joint Show Cause Notice - Jurisdiction
Fact of the Case:
A preventive party raided the business premises of two firms and seized goods alleged to be of foreign origin. A joint show cause notice was issued to both firms for confiscation of seized goods and imposition of penalty under the Customs Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the writ petition after considering affidavits from both parties, where they agreed to separate proceedings against them. The court directed the Additional Collector to issue a corrigendum separating the case into two within a specified time.
Issues: Jurisdiction of serving a joint show cause notice, possibility of separating the case into two proceedings, agreement of the parties for separate proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the agreement of the parties to separate the proceedings and the concession made by the Department's counsel to issue a corrigendum separating the case into two.
Final Decision: The writ petition was finally disposed of, and the Additional Collector was directed to issue a corrigendum separating the case into two within a specified time.
N.B.Singh
V. K. KHANNA, J.
( 1 ) ON 6. 8. 1986 a preventive party led by the Assistant Collector (Preventive) Central Excise allahabad raided the business premises of M/s. Music Time Electro Cottage and M/s. Dinesh video Cassette. The raiding party recovered and seized 27 wrist watches alleged to be of foreign make from the premises of M/s. Music Time Electro Cottage. 24 Cassettes of tape recorder and 185 V. C. R. Cassettes alleged to be of foreign origin were recovered and seized from the premises of M/s. Dinesh Video Cassette. A show cause notice dated 20. 1. 1987 addressed to both the firms was issued by the Assistant Collector Central Excise Allahabad requiring them to show cause as to why the seized goods be not confiscated under Section 111 of the Customs Act and why penalty be also not imposed on them under Section 112 of the aforesaid Act.
( 2 ) ON 17. 2. 1987 the petitioner moved an application for separating the cases for adjudication by the proper competent authority. No orders were passed by the Assistant Collector on the aforesaid application of the petitioner but he was asked to submit his reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner filed a writ petition No. 644 of 1987 in this court which was finally disposed of on 29th July 1987 with the observations that the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner will be decided at the first instance. The Assistant Collector Central Excise by his order dated 21. 10. 1987 held that it was not possible to separate the case into two different and separate cases. It is at this stage that the present writ petition has been filed and it has been urged that a joint show cause notice could not be served on the petitioner and the newly aided respondent No. 3 inasmuch as the raid had been conducted in pursuance of two separate search warrants. It has been urged that the entire proceedings are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
( 3 ) AT the admission stage we have heard Sri N. B. Singh, Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and the writ petition is being disposed of finally in accordance with the Rules of the court.
( 4 ) AT the outset it may be mentioned that M/s. Video Cassette through its sole proprietor Dinesh chandra has been impleaded in the present writ petition as respondent No. 3 and is represented in this court through an advocate. Two affidavits have been filed one on behalf of the petitioner and the other by respondent No. 3. In both the affidavits the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 have made a statement that they are not raising any point regarding the issue of a separate show cause notice on the ground of limitation. It has been stated that in case a corrigendum is issued by which two separate proceedings are now held i. e. one against the petitioner and the other against the respondent No. 3, the same will not be objected by them on the ground that the same could not be done on account of the corrigendum being issued at a later date. Sri N. B. Singh, senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Department has frankly conceded that in such a situation the Department will have no objection in issuing a corrigendum separating the case into two cases. In view of the two affidavits filed by the petitioner and the respondent No. 3, we are of the opinion that the additional Collector Central Excise Allahabad will now issue a corrigendum in continuation of the original show cause notice, which admittedly had been issued within the period of limitation prescribned, bifurcating the case into two. After the issuing of the corrigendum separate proceedings against the petitioner and the respondent go on in accordance with law. It may be stated that the petitioner and the respondents, including the newly added respondent No. 3 have agreed to such a course of action before us.
( 5 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the present writ petition is finally disposed of. Petitioner will file a certified copy of this order before the Additional Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad by 20th april who will issue a corrigendum separating the case into two within two weeks of the filing of the certified copy of our order by the petitioner. A certified copy of this order shall be given to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges by 12th April 1988.
.