2002 (6) TMI 54 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the search and seizure conducted on 23-1-1990.
2. Validity of Notification No. 68/63 issued under Section 12 of the Central Excises and Salt Act.
3. Applicability of Section 121 of the Customs Act to the Central Excise Act.
4. Authority of the Assistant Collector to issue a search warrant.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Search and Seizure Conducted on 23-1-1990:
The petitioner challenged the search and seizure of Indian currency totaling Rs. 83,42,070/- from his residence, arguing it was illegal and without authority of law. The Court noted that the search was conducted based on intelligence of excise duty evasion by manufacturers with whom the petitioner was associated. During the search, non-duty paid excisable goods and incriminating documents were also seized. The petitioner admitted that the currency was from the sale of camphor and Isoborneol but failed to provide proper accounts. The Court held that the search was conducted as per the procedure prescribed by the Act, and the Assistant Collector had a reasonable belief that the petitioner was involved in the evasion of excise duty. The Court concluded that the search and subsequent actions were valid and dismissed the petition.

2. Validity of Notification No. 68/63 Issued Under Section 12 of the Central Excises and Salt Act:
The petitioner contended that Notification No. 68/63, which extends the provisions of the Customs Act to the Central Excise Act, was ultra vires and not applicable to him. The Court rejected this argument, stating that excise duty is levied on goods, not on the manufacturer. The Court emphasized that the onus was on the petitioner to prove that the goods in his possession were duty-paid. The Court upheld the validity of the notification, asserting that it applies to any person found in possession of non-duty paid excisable goods, including dealers. The petition was dismissed on these grounds.

3. Applicability of Section 121 of the Customs Act to the Central Excise Act:
The petitioner argued that Section 121 of the Customs Act, which deals with the confiscation of sale proceeds of smuggled goods, should not apply to the Central Excise Act. The Court noted that by virtue of Notification No. 68/63, the provisions of the Customs Act, including Section 121, are applicable to the Central Excise Act. The Court held that sale proceeds of non-duty paid excisable goods could be seized under the Central Excise Act. The petitioner's contention was dismissed, and the applicability of Section 121 was upheld.

4. Authority of the Assistant Collector to Issue a Search Warrant:
The petitioner argued that the search warrant issued by the Assistant Collector was invalid as he was not the "proper officer" under the Act. The Court referred to the relevant notification and provisions, concluding that the Assistant Collector had the authority to issue the search warrant. The Court cited precedents to support that the Assistant Collector's reasonable belief was sufficient for conducting the search. The Court dismissed the argument that the search was illegal due to the warrant being issued by the Assistant Collector.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed both writ petitions. It held that the search and seizure conducted on 23-1-1990 were legal and valid. The Court also upheld the validity and applicability of Notification No. 68/63, extending the provisions of the Customs Act to the Central Excise Act. The petitioner's arguments regarding the authority of the Assistant Collector and the applicability of Section 121 of the Customs Act were rejected. The petitions were found devoid of merit and were dismissed accordingly.