TMI Blog1974 (7) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the payment of Central Excise Duty. The petitioner produced Invoice No. 1 dated 23-8-1971 and letters dated 20-9-1971 which would show that the matches were supplied by Messrs. Karnataka Agencies, Mysore-I. Messrs. Karnataka Agencies, Mysore-1 are not also manufacturers or producers. Later, however, the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Sivakasi, issued a show cause notice dated 24-4-1972 in his S. No. 333/71 calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why the matches seized from the petitioner on 12-11-1971 should not be confiscated under Rule 9 sub-rule (2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice and it appears that so far no final orders have been passed thereon. It is the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of any other person for Rule 9 (2) of the Rules framed under the Act is applicable to manufacturers and producers as defined under the Act and therefore the seizure from the possession of the petitioner is illegal as the petitioner is admittedly neither a manufacturer nor a producer. (4) That the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Sivakasi, has no jurisdiction to enquire into tee matter as the matches were seized in Hyderabad. 3. I regret I cannot accede to any of the contentions advanced by the learned Advocate. Matches are excisable goods according to item 38 of the Schedule to the Act. According to Rule 9 of the Rules framed under the Act no excisable goods shall be removed from any place where they are produced, cured, ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... answered by sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 which provides that if any excisable goods are in contravention of sub-rule (1) deposited in or removed from any place specified therein the producer or manufacturer thereof shall pay the duty leviable on such goods upon written demand made by the proper officer and shall also be liable to confiscation. Sri Jogayya Sarma contends that it is only the manufacturer or producer that will be liable to pay the duty and penalty and the confiscation of the goods would only take place provided they are within the possession of the manufacturer or producer. But where the goods are in the possession of a third person as a purchaser, then the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 cannot be applicable. To my mind this c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods are in the possession of a manufacturer or a producer but not in the possession of a third person who does not come within the ambit of producer or manufacturer. Sri Subrahmanya Reddy, the learned Counsel for the Central Government has brought to my notice that seizure in the instant case has not taken place under Rule 173Q But the seizure has taken place under Section 110 of the Customs Act because the Central Government has issued a notification under Section 12 of the Central Excises and Salt Act applying Section 110 of the Customs Act. Therefore according to Sri Subrahmanya Reddy the seizure of the goods in the instant case has taken place according to the provisions of Section 110 of the Customs Act and not according to Rule 173Q. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|