9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the petitioner, a general merchant trading in matches, can be held liable for excise duty on matches seized from his possession. 2. Whether the provisions of the Central Excise Act apply to the petitioner. 3. Whether the confiscation of goods for non-payment of excise duty can apply to a non-manufacturer or non-producer. 4. Whether the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise in Sivakasi has jurisdiction over goods seized in Hyderabad. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a general merchant trading in matches, had 68 match bundles seized by the Central Excise Department for lack of proof of excise duty payment. The petitioner argued that being a purchaser from another buyer, he was not aware of the duty status at the time of purchase. He sought a writ under Article 226 for release of the matches. The court noted matches are excisable goods and cannot be removed without duty payment and a gate-pass, as per Rules 9, 52, and 52-A. The court held that under Rule 9(2), goods can be confiscated even if not in possession of the manufacturer, supporting this interpretation with a Madras High Court judgment. 2. The petitioner contended that as a non-dealer under the Central Excise Act, the provisions did not apply to him. However, the court rejected this argument, emphasizing that excisable goods like matches are subject to duty payment and regulations regardless of the petitioner's status as a dealer. 3. The petitioner argued that confiscation rules only apply to manufacturers or producers, not to buyers like him. The court disagreed, stating that Rule 173Q applies to all parties involved in the removal of excisable goods in contravention of rules. The court clarified that confiscation can occur regardless of the possessor's status, citing the seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act in this case. 4. Lastly, the petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Asstt. Collector in Sivakasi over goods seized in Hyderabad. The court ruled that since the offense of non-payment of excise duty occurred at the manufacturing place in Sivakasi, the Asstt. Collector there had the authority to conduct the inquiry. The court dismissed the writ petition, noting that the petitioner could present arguments during the authority's proceedings on the show-cause notice.
|
