LAWS(KER)-1972-5-5

SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. GEORGE

Decided On May 22, 1972
SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE Appellant
V/S
GEORGE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts in this case are similar to the facts in P. S. N. Lorry Transports v. The Collector of Customs and Central Excise ( ILR 1967 (2) Ker. 660 ).

(2.) The respondent is the owner of a jeep; and the first appellant seized the vehicle taking power under S.110 of the Customs Act claiming that uncured coffee seeds liable to excise duty were taken in the jeep and the jeep and the offending goods were liable to confiscation. The respondent filed a writ petition disputing the power of the first appellant to seize the jeep. It was contended before a Single Judge that there was no power for such seizure of a vehicle apart from the offending goods, which contention found favour with the Single Judge, who quashed the seizure of the vehicle. The Superintendent of Central Excise and the Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise have appealed against that decision.

(3.) The main point for consideration is whether a vehicle which carried excisable goods could be seized by virtue of the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act. Under S.12 of the Act, the Central Government has power to declare that any of the provisions of the Sea Customs Act relating to the levy of and exemption from customs duties, etc. be applicable in regard to like matters in respect of the duties imposed by S.3 of the Act, which empowers the levy and collection of excise duty. Taking power under this section, the Central Government published a notification in the Official Gazette declaring that some of the sections of the Customs Act like sub-s.(1) of S.105, S.110, S.115 (excluding clauses (a) and (c) of sub-s.(1) thereof), etc. be applicable to the collection and levy of excise duty. The jeep was found carrying uncured coffee seeds liable to pay excise duty; and on that ground the vehicle was seized a few days after. And it is this seizure that is being disputed. We may at the very outset observe that the decision we have already referred to in P. S. N. Lorry Transports case does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the Single Judge who decided the writ petition. S.110 of the Customs Act made applicable to the Excises and Salt Act provides that, if the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, he may seize such goods. The question thus boils down to this: whether a vehicle is liable to confiscation, and if so, whether it is liable to be seized under S.110.