TMI Blog1986 (9) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .30 a.m. the Inspector of Central Excise, Kattumavai along with his staff noticed a van bearing registration No. TMU 5841 belonging to the appellant coming from Thiruppunavasal side towards Avudaiyarkoil direction, within the jurisdiction of the Trichy Collec-torate. The authorities signalled the vehicle to stop and since the vehicle did not stop, the officers fired three rounds in the air when the occupants of the van abandoned the same and escaped in darkness. Search of the van resulted in the recovery of 15 gunny bundles in wet condition which on opening were found to contain Video Cassette Recorders and Polyester suitings of foreign origin, totally valued at Rs. 2,54,650/-. The goods were seized by the authorities as per law under mahaz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the date of seizure, of the van as per Section 110(2) of the Act is legally sustainable. In my opinion, even though there is a right to restoration of the goods under seizure in the absence of a show cause notice within the statutory period of six months from the date of seizure in terms of Section 110(2) of the Act and such right is a vested civil right of the person from whom the goods were seized, that would not affect the jurisdiction of the authorities to effect confiscation of the same in adjudication proceedings in pursuance of a show cause notice issued under Section 124 of the Act. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Amruthalakshmi (reported in AIR 1975 Mad.) dealing with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act and violation thereof would only affect the seizure of the goods and not the validity of the show cause notice issued in terms of Section 124 of the Act. The Division Bench of the Madras high Court has interpreted the ratio of the Supreme Court in the way I have done. The Bombay High Court has also taken a similar view of the case of Mohanlal Devdhanbhai Choksey and others v. M.P. Mondkar and others, reported in AIR 1977 Bombay 320. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Manilal v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh (reported in AIR 1975 Punj Har 130) has followed the view of the Madras Bench. The Gujarat High Court has also taken a similar view in the case of J.K. Bardolia Mills v. M.L. Khungar, Deputy Collec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
