AHAMMED Vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petition raise a common question regarding the jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise, Cochin, to order confiscation of vehicles concerned in the illicit transport of contraband or smuggled goods.

(2.) The confiscation of the contraband article and the imposition of a personal penalty were directed in these cases under R.9, 32 and 33 of the Central Excise and Salt R.1944. The confiscations of the vehicles concerned were ordered in both these cases under the provisions of S.115 (2) of the Customs Act 1962, as adapted for central excise adjudications by a Notification No. 68/63, issued under the provisions of S.12 of the Central Excise and Salt Act 1944. The contention advanced in these O. Ps. is that by reason of the adaptation of S.115 (2) of the Customs Act 1962, there is a power to order confiscation of the vehicles in regard to adjudications under the Central Excise and Salt Act and the Rules, but there has been no specification of the authority competent to exercise such a power.

(3.) S.122 of the Customs Act 1962 specifies the authorities competent to adjudge any confiscation or penalty under the Act. The said section has not been adapted by notification No. 68/63 issued under S.12 of the Central Excise and Salt Act. The corresponding provision under the Central Excise and Salt Act, namely S.33, limits the power to adjudge confiscation or penalty to cases "whereby rules made under this Act, anything is liable to confiscation or any person is liable to a penalty". The same limitation is also seen in the provisions of S.34 of the Central Excise and Salt Act. The argument of the counsel for the petitioners centred round the limitation in the provisions of the Central Excise and Salt Act and the absence of any adaptation of S.122 of the Customs Act 1962.