9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (7) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by order dated 13-5-1996 is not authorised in law. As it appears from the order and the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent the facts revealed are that a vehicle of the petitioner was intercepted on 10-8-1995 while it was carrying cigarettes produced by the factory on which the payment of duty had not been effected. The vehicle and the cigarettes were seized which were released to the partie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to about Rs. 15 crores approximately. 2. Mr. K.V. Simhadri, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the plant and machinery are not goods on which the duty of excise had been avoided those are not liable to be seized, and that so far as the seized vehicle and cigarettes are concerned confiscation proceedings has already been started. It is also submitted that the plant and machiner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... warrant a confiscation proceeding and under sub-rule (2) inter alia, where such facts as are referred to in clause (a), (b), (c) or (d) of sub-rule (1) occur and the duty leviable on the excisable goods referred to in that sub-rule exceeds Rs. 1 lakh the authority may direct confiscation of any land, building, plant and machinery of the unit. Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 vests authority, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... empowers the adjudicating officer also to confiscate the plant and machinery yet there is no other provision which enables the authority to direct detention of plant and machinery prior to adjudication. In the case the provisions of Rule 209 and Section 110 of the Customs Act were not being considered. That being so the decision has no applicability to the facts of the present case. The learned Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
