1987 (3) TMI 112 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods under Central Excise Rules.
2. Applicability of Section 110(2) and Section 124(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Notice requirements for confiscation of goods.
4. Interpretation of appellate findings and implications on confiscation.

Analysis:

1. The case involved the confiscation of copper and copper alloy circles by the Central Excise authorities from the possession of a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of brass utensils. The Assistant Collector imposed a penalty and ordered confiscation of the goods due to alleged contravention of Central Excise Rules. However, the Appellate Collector set aside the penalty but upheld the confiscation, leading to the petitioner approaching the court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. The petitioner based its claim on Section 110(2) and Section 124(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, which were extended to Central Excise duties. Section 110(2) provides for the return of seized goods if no notice is given within a specified period. Section 124(a) mandates the issuance of a notice before confiscation or penalty imposition.

3. The court noted that despite the goods being seized from the petitioner, no notice was provided, as required by law. This absence of notice entitled the petitioner to the return of the goods. The court emphasized that the findings of the Appellate Collector must be respected, and in this case, since there was no duty evasion by the rolling mills, the goods could not be confiscated from the petitioner.

4. Considering the appellate findings and the exoneration of the rolling mills, the court concluded that the petitioner was not accountable for excise duty. As a result, the orders directing confiscation were set aside, and the respondents were directed to return the goods to the petitioner in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Customs Act and Central Excise Act. The court allowed the petition partly, with no costs imposed on the parties involved.