RAM KRISHNA AGARWALLA Vs. CONTROLLER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two matters are taken up for analogous hearing and disposal since they involve common questions of fact and law.

(2.) As a matter of fact, in both the Civil Rules the common question evolved is the effect of non-service of notice under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 The petitioner in both the Rules are wholesalers in cigarettes. They buy and sell wholesale various brands of cigarettes manufactured by Duncan Agro Industries Ltd in its Division of National Tobacco Company (in short, the N.T.C). The petitioners not being manufacturers of cigarettes are not liable for payment of any excise duty. However, Central Excise authorities sometime an February, 1984 carried out search in the business premises of the petitioners and seized several packets of cigarettes as well as a number of documents under the different seizure lists. Subsequently, however, the seized goods excepting the, documents were released in favour of the petitioners on their executing bonds under Rule 206(8) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

(3.) By reason of a Notification under Section 12 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (in short, the Central Excise Act) some provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 including Sections 110 arid 124 thereof were made applicable proceeding under the said Act Section 124 read with Section 110(2) of the Customs Act provide for show cause notices within six months from the seizure of goods. However, within the said period no notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act was served upon the petitioners, but an exercise of the power under the proviso to Section 110(2) of the Customs Act the said period of six months extended for a further period of six months.