Excise search authorisation requires specific application of mind; omnibus search order fails for unapproved premises.

In excise search matters, recorded reasons to believe and approval by the empowered officer were sufficient; the officer was not required to personally record those reasons if he applied his mind. Prior approval from the Director General, Central Excise Intelligence was not shown to be a statutory requirement. A search had to be specifically authorised for the premises concerned, and an omnibus order without unit-specific application of mind was invalid for the unapproved unit while remaining valid for the units actually covered. The dispute over whether the goods were exempt or dutiable raised factual questions and was left to the departmental authority, not decided in writ jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reasons to conduct the search existed and whether they had to be personally recorded by the empowered officer; (ii) whether approval from the Director General, Central Excise Intelligence was required for the search; (iii) whether there was valid application of mind for ordering search of the concerned unit and whether the search of the unit without specific identification was illegal; (iv) whether the challenge to excisability of the goods could be decided in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the reasons to conduct the search existed and whether they had to be personally recorded by the empowered officer.

Analysis: The record disclosed that reasons for search were noted before the search order, including the belief that goods were being cleared as Kattha without payment of duty and that the product could be classifiable as a dutiable item. The legal requirement was the existence of relevant reasons to believe before search, coupled with application of mind by the empowered officer. Personal recording of those reasons by the empowered officer was not mandatory under the applicable statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The reasons existed, and they did not have to be personally recorded by the empowered officer, provided he applied his mind and approved them.

Issue (ii): Whether approval from the Director General, Central Excise Intelligence was required for the search.

Analysis: The note referring to a letter to the Director General related to communication of intelligence for other units and did not create a statutory precondition for authorising the search. No legal requirement of prior approval from the Director General for conducting the search was shown.

Conclusion: Prior approval from the Director General, Central Excise Intelligence was not required for the search.

Issue (iii): Whether there was valid application of mind for ordering search of the concerned unit and whether the search of the unit without specific identification was illegal.

Analysis: The empowered officer endorsed the Superintendent's note, showing approval of the reasons and application of mind. However, the materials specifically identified some units and did not show specific approval for one concerned unit. A general or omnibus search order without specific application of mind to the unit searched was impermissible because search is a serious measure requiring specific authorisation.

Conclusion: The search was valid for the specifically covered units, but illegal for the unit not specifically authorised.

Issue (iv): Whether the challenge to excisability of the goods could be decided in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The question whether the product was exempt or dutiable involved disputed questions of fact and was already the subject of departmental proceedings and notices. Such factual determination was not fit for adjudication in writ jurisdiction at that stage.

Conclusion: The excisability issue was left to be decided by the departmental authority in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded only to the limited extent of invalidating the search for the unit not specifically covered, while the departmental proceedings on excisability were left open for decision by the competent authority through a reasoned order.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the search provisions applicable to excise matters, the existence of recorded reasons and approval by the empowered officer are sufficient, but a search must be supported by specific application of mind to the particular premises searched; an omnibus or unsupported search authorisation is invalid.

---