1. The only question that falls for consideration in these appeals by the assessee is whether a notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') is required to be issued within the period specified under Section 110(1), as extended under the proviso, of the Act. In Harbans Lal v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Chandigarh , it has been laid down that the period specified under Section 110 within which the notice regarding seizure can be given does not limit the power under Section 124 of the Act and that said section [Section 124] does not lay down any period within which the notice is required to be given. The said view is based on the earlier judgment of this Court in Assistant Collector of Customs v. Charan Das Malhotra . The same view has been taken in Chaganlal Gainmull v. Collector of Central Excise and Ors. = 1990 (Supp.) SCC 527.
2. Shri C.S. Vaidyanathan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, has submitted that in Charan Das Malthora's case (supra) this Court was only dealing with the provisions in Section 110 and the question of initiation of proceedings under Section 124 was not in issue in the said decision. That may be so, but still while construing the provisions of Section 110, this Court, after taking note of the provisions of Section 124, has laid down that Section 124 does not prescribe any time limit for issue of notice. We do not find any reason to take different view in the matter.
3. These appeals are thus fully covered by the decision of this Court in Harbans Lal's case (supra). The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.