JUDGMENT

FAZAL ALI, J.:— This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, D/- 19-11-1976* by which the High Court quashed the notice dated 27th July, 1972 issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs and also quashed fresh adjudication proceedings started by him under the provisions of the Customs Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

* Reported in 1977 Cri LJ 972 (Madh. Pra).

2. The appeal lies within a very narrow compass and turns upon the interpretation of the order passed by the appellate authority under Section 128 of the Act. On 27th February, 1969 the respondent Pratap Rai was detrained at Jabalpur by the Customs authorities while he was travelling by the Bombay Janta Express. On being searched as many as 23 wrist watches on which no custom duty was paid were recovered from his person. There adjudication proceeding under Section 122 of the Act were commenced by the Assistant Collector of Customs which culminated in the order of the Assistant collector dated 30th June, 1969 by which the watches were seized and ordered to be confiscated. A penalty of Rs. 250/- was levied on the respondent under Section 112 of the Act. The respondent then carried an appeal to the Appellate Collector under Section 128 of the Act against the order of the Assistant collector. The Appellate Collector by his order dated 22nd February, 1972 vacated the order of the Assistant Collector mainly on the ground that the Assistant Collector had not complied with the rules of natural justice. The fate of this case depends on the interpretation of the order passed by the Appellate Collector.

3. In order to appreciate the point in issue it may be necessary to extract the relevant portion of the order of the Appellate Collector which runs thus :-

"The adjudication, therefore, suffers for lack of principle of natural justice, inasmuch as adequate opportunities were not given to the appellant to defend his case. I, therefore without prejudice, vacate the order of the adjudication passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Jabalpur." (Emphasis supplied),

4. The department appears to have interpreted the aforesaid order as an implied order of remand and issued a fresh notice to the respondent on the 27th July, 1972 and started fresh adjudication proceedings according to the implied direction of the Appellate Collector. Thereafter the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh assailing the notice and praying that the proceedings started by the Assistant Collector even after the vacation of the order by the Appellate Collector be queshed. The plea taken by the respondent appears to have found favour with the High Court which allowed the petition, quashed the notice as also the fresh adjudication proceedings. The appellant obtained special leave of this Court against the order of the High Court and hence this appeal before us.

5. The only point that was contended before us by Mr. E. C. Agrawala appearing in support of the appeal was that the High Court has erred in not properly interpreting the order of the Appellate Collector. According to the learned counsel, a true and plain interpretation of the order of the Appellate Collector would clearly reveal that he had merely vacated the order of the Assistant Collector because it suffered from a technical infirmity and had not barred the commencement of fresh adjudicatory proceedings. Mr. Naunit Lal appearing for the respondent however submitted that there was no clear direction in the order of the Appellate Collector from which it could be inferred that he had remanded the case, and, therefore, there was no jurisdiction in the Assistant Collector to issue a fresh notice or start adjudicatory proceedings against the respondent. In out opinion, the contention of counsel for the appellants appears to be sound and must prevail. A perusal of the order of the Appellate Collector extracted above clearly shows two important facts. (1) that the