PRATAP RAI Vs. SUPERINTENDENT TECH I CENTRAL EXCISE I D O AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks a suitable writ to quash the adjudication proceedings and de novo enquiry commenced by a fresh notice dated 13-12-1972 (Annexure-E) issued under the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter called the Act.)

(2.) ON 27-2-1969, when the petitioner detrained at the Jabalpur railway-station from the Janata Express coming from Bombay, he was searched by officers of the Central Excise Department who recovered 23 wrist watches of foreign make from his possession. This gave rise to adjudication proceedings against the petitioner commenced by a show cause notice dated 23-5-1969 (Annexure-A) issued by the Assistant Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Jabalpur (respondent No. 2 ). That proceeding ended by the order dated 30-6-1969 (Annexure-B) passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby all the watches were confiscated under Section 111 (d) of the Act on the ground that no duty had been paid thereon and a penalty of Rs. 250/- was imposed under Section 112 of the Act. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Collector (respondent No. 3) under Section 128 of the Act, Under Section 128 (2) of the Act, by the order dated 22-71972 (Annexure-C), the respondent No. 3 set aside the order of adjudication (Annexure-B) passed by the respondent No. 2 without any direction remanding the case for commencement of a de novo enquiry. Thereafter' a fresh notice dated 27-7-1972 (Annexure-D) was issued to the petitioner by the respondent No. 1 for commencement of a de novo enquiry and the petitioner's objection to the same having been rejected, the present petition has been filed substantially for the relief already stated.

(3.) THE petitioner's case is that the order of respondent No. 8 passed in appeal under Section 128 (2) of the Act not having given any direction of remand permitting a fresh enquiry and the same having become final) the de nevo enquiry and fresh proceedings for. adjudication now commenced are without jurisdiction. In reply, the respondents contend that the direction of remand is implicit in the appellate order Annexure-C wherein the expression "without prejudice" has been used.