9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (9) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 were not meant to be incorporated in the Act and were only to be applicable to the extent notified by the Central Government for the purpose of the duty leviable under Section 3. It was in these circumstances that it was held that section 129 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 could not be made applicable so as to whittle down the substantive right of appeal conferred by Section 35 of the Act. The previous notification under the Sea Customs Act, 1878 stood superseded and no question survives with regard to the validity of the notification issued in 1963 and amended in 1965. Appeal dismissed. - 460 of 1970 - - - Dated:- 8-9-1970 - J.C. Shah, K.S. Hegde and A.N. Grover, JJ. [Judgment per : Grover. J.]. - 1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court dismissing a writ petition by which the appellant challenged the validity of a warrant issued by Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad, authorising the Superintendent, Central Excise, Varanasi to enter certain premises, search the same and seize the documents therefrom. 2. The appellant, which is a public limited company having its registered office at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette declare that any of the provisions of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, relating to the levy on and exemption from customs duties, drawback of duty, warehousing offences and penalties, confiscation, and procedure relating to offences and appeals, shall, with such modifications and alterations as it may consider necessary or desirable to adapt them to the circumstances, be applicable in regard to like matters in respect of the duties imposed by Section 3." When the Act was enacted Section 172 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 which could be applied to the Act under Section 12 provided : Section "172. Any Magistrate may, on application by a Customs Collector, stating his belief that dutiable or prohibited goods (or any documents relating to such goods) are secreted in any place within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such Magistrate, issue a warrant to search for such goods. Such warrant shall be executed in the same way and shall have the same effect, as a search warrant issued under the law relating to Criminal Procedure." It may be mentioned that the words "or documents", were inserted by the Sea Customs (Amendment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nge in principle is involved. See In re- Delhi Laws Act, 1912, 1951 SCR 747 = (AIR 1951 SC 332). It was conceded before the High Court and has not been urged before us that the word "modifications" could not be taken as conferring on the Central Government any legislative power which was in excess of the permissible limits. Objection was taken only with regard to the word "alterations" but that word must be understood in the sense in which it was open to the legislature to employ it legitimately and in a constitutional manner. No question is thus involved of delegation, either of any essential legislative functions or any change of legislative policy. 7. The second contention has hardly any merit. Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act provides that where any Central Act, repeals and re-enacts with or without modification, any provision of a former enactment, then references in any such enactment or in any instrument to the provision so repealed shall, unless a different intention appears, be construed as references to the provision so re-enacted. By virtue of this provision it cannot be disputed that in Section 12 of the Act, the Customs Act, 1962 can be read in place of the Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereof." In 54 and 55 Vict. Ch. 19 Section 1(3), the language employed was : "The provisions of Section 134 of the said Act (set out in the Schedule) shall apply as if they were herein enacted." It is unnecessary to mention the other provisions because a comparison of the recognised formulae with the text of Section 12 of the Act shows that the provisions of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 were not meant to be incorporated in the Act and were only to be applicable to the extent notified by the Central Government for the purpose of the duty leviable under Section 3. 8. Another aspect which has been presented under the second contention is that the impugned notification is bad and stands vitiated because under the previous notification which applied Section 172 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 it was a Magistrate who had to bring his judicial mind to bear on the expediency or desirability of issuing a warrant for search whereas under the present notification after the enactment of the Customs Act, 1962, it is the Assistant Collector of Customs who performs executive functions and who has been empowered to issue the warrant for search and seizure. The decision of this Court in Collect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
