Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1988 (1) TMI 52

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion of National Tobacco Company (in short, the N.T.C.). The petitioners not being manufacturers of cigarettes are not liable for payment of any excise duty. However, the Central Excise authorities sometime in February, 1984 carried out search in the business premises of the petitioner and seized several packets of cigarettes as well as a number of documents under different seizure lists. Subsequently, however, the seized goods excepting the documents were released in favour of the petitioners on their executing bonds under Rule 206(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 4. By reasons of a Notification under Section 12 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (in short, the Central Excise Act) some provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 inclu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... preciation of the contention so raised by Mr. Dhar, Section 110(2) with the proviso is quoted hereunder : "Where any goods are seized under sub-section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of Section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whom they were seized. Provided that the aforesaid period of six months may, on sufficient cause being shown be extended by the Collector of Customs for a period not exceeding six months." 9. In the instant Rules, as already seen, the initial period of six months was subsequently extended for a further period of six months by the Collector of Customs after due notice to the petitioners and after giving them proper he .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e already been disposed of by the petitioners and are no longer available to the Central Excise authorities for confiscation. And that being so, it becomes more academic as to whether the goods were actually released under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act or not. 15. In this connection it was contended by Mr. Dhar that since the petitioners were entitled to the return of the goods seized for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, the Security amounts furnished by them for the release of the goods should be directed to be refunded to them. This was, however, seriously opposed by Mr. Roychoudhury, the learned Counsel representing the Central Excise authorities. 16. According to Mr. Roychoudhury, non-Serv .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tral Excise Act. 20. The identical question came for consideration before the Bombay High Court in Mohanlal Devdanbhai v. M.P. Mandkar, A.I.R. 1977 Bombay 320 and it was held relying upon different other decisions, that on a plain reading of Section 124 it will be open to the competent officer to pass an order of confiscation of goods or imposing any penalty without seizing any goods or after returning the goods under the proviso to Section 110(2) for failure to initiate proceedings within the prescribed time. 21. The Supreme Court in Assistant Collector v. Charandas Malhotra, A.I.R. 1972 SC 689 also held that the period laid down in Section 110(2) affects only the seizure of the goods and not the validity of the notice. As a matter of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ispose of the matter. 26. Incidentally the Rule obtained by the Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. has since been discharged for non-prosecution and the interim order for maintenance of status quo has been vacated. It will, therefore, be open to the Central Excise Authorities not to take appropriate actions so far the instant writ petitioners are concerned. 27. It is apparently clear that the writ petitioners here are not the manufacturers of the cigarettes seized from their custody and consequently are not liable for payment of excise duty. But they can still be proceeded against under Section 9 of the Central Excise Act or any other relevant provisions for imposition of penalty etc. in accordance with law. 28. In the aforesaid view of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates