JAGANNATH DATTATRAYA Vs. COLLECTOR OF CEN EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner on 30-7-73 was the registered owner of a motor lorry bearing registration No. MHD 8539. It was seized by the officials of the Customs Authorities, Bangalore, on Bangalore-Tumkur Road (about 9 miles from Bangalore) as it was carrying smuggled articles. It was searched and it was found to be carrying some contraband articles valued at Rs. 50,505. In that circumstance a mahazar was drawn up and the lorry was also seized and the: driver was arrested. In the mahazar the value of the lorry was shown at Rs. 40,000. However, the Assistant Controller of Central Excise and Customs released the said lorry to the petitioner on his depositing the sum of Rs. 5,000 in cash and also executing a bond for Rs. 70,000. One of the conditions in the bond so executed was that the petitioner would produce the lorry as and when required by the specified Customs Authorities or Courts. Further under the terms of the bond, if he failed to do so a sum of rupees 70,000 was recoverable from the petitioner and also the security deposit of Rs. 5,000 was liable to be forefeited.

(2.) By a letter dated 12-7-76 the 1st respondent herein called upon the petitioner to produce the lorry bearing No. MHD 8539 on 22-7-1976. On receipt of the letter the petitioner wrote back saying that the lorry was destroyed on 12-12-73 at Haveri during riots on account of border dispute between Karnataka and Maharashtra. However, the 1st respondent, by his order dated 18-10-76 issued on 24-6-77 ordered confiscation of the petitioner's lorry with permission to redeem the same at Rs. 50,000. He further ordered that Rs. 5000 deposited by the petitioner as security deposit under the bond should be forfeited towards the redemption fine and the balance of Rs. 45,000 recovered from the petitioner as the owner of the lorry.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order of the 1st respondent the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, substantially on the two main grounds that he could not produce the lorry for reasons beyond his control and therefore his vehicle was not liable to confiscation under the bond and that the order of the 1st respondent - Collector was not sustainable in as much as, having found him not guilty of any complicity in carrying contraband article it was not open to the 1st respondent to proceed to make an order under S. 115(2) of the Customs Act. 1962.