9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (6) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se issued a notification in exercise of his powers under Rule 140 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Under this notification, the amount for which the bond should be executed in respect of a private warehouse could be normally 25% of the duty involved. Clause (ii) provides that the amount of B4 bond shall not exceed Rs. 50,000/- and shall not be less than Rs. 2,000/-. The bond may be executed either with a surety or after depositing security. Clause (iii) provides that those who wish to execute the bond in form B4 (surety) have to be solvent themselves for the bond amount and should also name the surety/security of sufficient financial standing for endorsing the bond. The surety may be any person, firm or bank whose financial stability and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imself to pay the duty due on the goods deposited therein, or for the due and safe removal of such goods from one part or division of any warehouse to any other part or division of the same warehouse, or to any other warehouse and for the due observance of the terms, conditions and requirements of the Act, Rules and any orders made hereunder in respect thereof. It is seen from this rule that the Collector while granting a licence in respect of a private warehouse may require the licensee to furnish a bond in the proper form with such surety or sufficient security in such amount and under such conditions as the Collector approves. He is therefore entitled to impose such conditions as he may approve. I am of the view that this clause is wide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as wrong in requiring the obligors also to produce solvency certificate in addition to solvency certificate for surety, when the Collector's notification did not provide for the same. In this case, however, under the notification issued by the Collector, it is expressly stipulated that the obligor also should be solvent. It is pointed out in the counter affidavit that the subsequent notification was issued in order to rectify the omission in the previous notification which was responsible for my decision in the Writ Petition No. 345 of 1972. I am therefore of the opinion that this decision has no application to the facts of the present case. Mr. G.V.R. Mohan Rao, however, pointed out that in the said decision there are observations which wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would be repugnant to Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution as it would be an unreasonable restriction on the right of the petitioner and others to carry on their trade. I am unable to agree. It is not unreasonable to require that a trader who apply for a licence for a private warehouse for a stock in excisable commodity should himself be a solvent. It is argued that it is not possible for every person to possess immovable property worth Rs. 50,000/- and to insist upon such a condition would be practically preventing persons who do not possess property to that extent from carrying on an honest trade. It is seen that the requirement is as that the amount of the bond should not exceed Rs. 50,000/- and should not be less than Rs.2,000/-. The bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
