TMI Blog1975 (3) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xt. P1 is a detention memo dated 3-7-1973 issued to the petitioner by the second respondent, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Preventative Intelligence Unit, I.D.O., Kozhikode, Ext. P3 is the mahazar prepared by the Inspector of Central Excise, IDO, Kozhikode, dated 12-12-1973 for the seizure of six bundles of tobacco weighing 335.800 Kgs. Ext. P4 is the copy of a Notice No. V/4/15/96/73, d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he goods, and are bound to return the same to the petitioner. On behalf of the respondents it is argued that Ext. P1 is not really an order passed under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 110 of the Act, as there is no reference to that proviso to that sub-section a statement that it was because it was found impracticable to seize the goods in question that the owner was ordered not to remo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod of six months beyond which the detention or seizure could not be extended unless extended by another legally valid order, should be reckoned from the date of the order passed under section 110, whether it be a detention under the proviso to Section 110(1) or an actual seizure under Section 110(1) of the Act. There seems to be considerable force in this argument. The Petitioner has made a repr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
