9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (11) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the goods seized from the other premises belonged to a deceased brother of his by name Dhanraj. The petitioner gave a statement subsequently stating inter alia that three cases of press buttons had been purchased by him in the year 1957 at Madras through a representative of a merchant of Pondicherry. Action was taken on the basis of these statements and show cause notices were issued to the petitioner, his brother, Tharachand, and the widow of the deceased brother, Dhanraj. On enquiry, the Collector of Central Excise made an order confiscating all the goods except one camera and a radio set and also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 5,000 on the petitioner. The petitioner filed W.P. No. 1303 of 1961 and his brother's widow, Pattasi Bh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods seized from the residence of Pattasi Bhai were liable to be released to her and he accordingly directed the release of those items in her favour. There remained only the nita press buttons. As regards this item, the case of the petitioner was that he had purchased it from a merchant of Pondichery by name Messrs. Popular Trading Company, No. 8 Calve College Road, Pondicherry, as per a receipt dated 29-7-1957. The Collector found, on verification, that there was no such road in Pondicherry and that there was also no such firm by that name. Having observed this, he concluded :— "I, therefore, consider that, so far as these press buttons are concerned contraband imported into India without an I.T.C. licence and without payment of duty in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o action was taken, the Collector was bound to return the seized goods and had no power to initiate any action. 4.On behalf of the respondents a counter affidavit is filed alleging that in as much as the petitioner came forward with a specific case of purchase from a particular individual and in as much as that case had failed, it was within the competence of the authority to take that fact into consideration in finding out whether the goods had illicit origin or not, and that in as much as the petitioner had failed to prove the case of purchase, it was reasonable to infer that the goods had been brought into the country illicitly and that, therefore, the order of confiscation is valid. 5.The conclusion of the Collector of Central Excis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... session the goods were seized. Sub-section (2) said that the said action is applicable only to gold, gold manufactures, diamonds and other precious stones, cigarettes and cosmetics and any other goods which the Central Government may, by notification in the official gazette, specify in that behalf. It follows from this provision that if the question arises as regards any other goods the burden is not upon the person from whose possession the goods might have been seized. In other words, in such cases, the normal rule of presumption will arise and it is for the department to establish that the goods are smuggled goods. That position is placed beyond doubt by the Supreme Court in Ambalal v. Union of India, 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1321 (S.C.) = A.I.R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r cannot be sustained. 7.The contention of the petitioner that action taken under the 1878 Act is unsustainable and that action should have been taken under the 1962 Act, is not acceptable. Mr. Kothari, counsel for the petitioner, drew my attention to Sub-section (4) of section 160 of the 1962 Act which reads :- "This Act shall apply to all goods which are subject to the control of customs at the commencement of this Act notwithstanding that the goods were imported before such commencement." After referring to this provision, the counsel drew my attention to Section 110 which provides for seizure of goods, documents and things. Sub-section (1) of that section says that if the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are lia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tract sub-section (4) of section 160. Action was taken under the 1878 Act which was then in force. Though the order of confiscation was quashed by this Court, the Collector issued a fresh show cause notice. This should be deemed only in continuation of the earlier show cause notice which was in no way affected by the decision of this court. All that was quashed was the decision of the Collector confiscating the goods and imposing penalty. The show cause notice issued on 18-5-1965 explicitly stated that it was being issued as per the decision of this court. The other show cause notice dated 30-10-1965 was issued expressly stating that it was issued as part of the show cause notice dated 18-5-1965. The repeal of the 1878 Act by the 1962 Act d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
