1962 (9) TMI 2

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n under Art. 226 of the Constitution is that the order of the respondent, the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, is not warranted by the language of Rule 9 (2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, under which it is purported to have been made. 2. The admitted facts are as follows :- The petitioner, who is a cloth merchant, was found in possession of excisable goods on which excise duty had .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ch manner as is prescribed in these Rules or as the Collector may require, and except on presentation of an application in the proper form and on obtaining the permission of the proper officer on the form." 4. There is no denying of the fact that there has been a contravention of this Rule. The goods that have been confiscated had been removed from the place of manufacture without paying the exc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... confiscation. It is not possible to hold that the action of the authorities in confiscating the goods is not in accordance with Rule 9(2). The vires of this Rule was not questioned before us. The petitioner may have his own remedies as against the manufacturer or producer. But he cannot validly object to the confiscation of the goods in question. 6. We are unable to agree with Sri Ranga Rao, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X