KARUNAKARAN Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgment by a learned Judge of this Court, dismissing two petitions under Art.226. One of the petitioners still insists on challenging the proceedings whereby his car has been impounded on the allegation of certain provisions of the Central Excise Act having been infringed. Before dealing with the merits of the appeal, we would record our appreciation of the learning and skill, with which the appellants Advocate has argued his clients case. We would also acknowledge our indebtedness to the equally learned argument of the respondents Counsel. Coming to the facts of the appeal, they may be shortly narrated: On July 14, 1958 a car belonging to the appellant was found conveying four bags of contraband coffee seeds belonging to another, and this was at about 4-15 A. M. at a place about a mile south of Erattupetta. The Deputy Superintendent of the Central Excise, having stopped, searched the car and took the contraband coffee, as well as the car to the Excise Office, Moovattupuzha. The appellants request for the conveyance being unconditionally released was rejected, and it is stated that the rejection was because further proceedings concerning the illicit transport were then contemplated. For the purpose of deciding the appellants objection to his car having been seized, it is not necessary to adjudicate on the merits of the case against the appellant, for, should the attachment be found to be in exercise of lawful powers, the complaint of the fundamental rights under Art.31(1) having been infringed, would fail, and the appellant would be entitled to press his other objections on the merits of the case against himself before the proper Court, or authority. We therefore purpose to deal in this appeal with the question of how far the seizure of the car was not justified, and the appellants Advocate has raised three grounds for the impounding being illegal. The first is that the authorities under Central Excise Act, hereafter called the Act, have no authority of impounding land vehicles and the forfeiture must be ordered by a court in proceedings instituted against the party. The second is that the authorisation under S.12 of the Act does not enable the rule-making authority to incorporate in the rules under the Act, provisions of the Sea Customs Act, so as to make power of confiscation under the Sea Customs Act, part and parcel of the rules under the Act. The last is that assuming such authorisation to be justified under S.12, the delegation amounting to conferring power to enact, is void, and the rules framed thereunder have no legal force.

(2.) Before dealing with these arguments, it would be of advantage to briefly state the relevant provisions of the Act that came into force on February 28, 1944, but had been later amended by Act XLI of 1954. S.3 provides for the levy and collection of excise duty on all excisable goods other than salt, which are produced or manufactured in India, at the rates set forth in the First Schedule. S.9 enacts penalties against a person, who contravenes any provisions of the notifications under S.6 or 8, or of rules under sub-s.(2) of S.37, or evades payment of any duty payable under the Act, or fails to supply information or attempts to commit or abets the commission of any of the offences mentioned in the section. Such acts are punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both. S.10 vests courts trying cases with power to order forfeiture to the Government of any goods in respect of which the Court is satisfied that an offence has been committed. The same section further authorises the Court to order forfeiture to the Government of any receptacles, packages or coverings in which such goods are contained, and the animals, vehicles, vessels or other conveyances used in carrying the goods. The next important section reads as follows:

(3.) The powers of recording evidence and of making enquiry, etc., are contained in Chapter III. Some of the penalties for carrying excisable goods are contained in Chapter IV, whose S.24 makes the owner and master of a vessel of three hundred tons and upwards liable to imprisonment for a term that may extend to six months, and S.28 enacts that every vessel in which excisable goods are carried so as to render the owner of such vessels liable to penalties under S.24 shall be liable to confiscation. S.33 directs that where the rules under the Act create the liability, the confiscation shall be adjudged without any limitation by a Collector of Excise, and within certain limits by the Assistant Collector. S.35 provides for appeals, and revision is authorised by S.56. Finally S.37 confers the power on the Central Government to make rules and the first sub-section bestows the power in general terms. Sub-s.(2) then enumerates 20 heads under which the rules may be framed, and Sub-s.(3) gives the penalty for infringing the rules.