Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the notification dated 4-5-1963 issued under Section 12 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was ultra vires insofar as it applied the Customs Act provisions relating to search, and whether the Court should at this stage direct segregation of liability and fuller cross-examination in the pending adjudication.
Analysis: Section 12 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was construed liberally as part of the machinery for levy and collection of duty. The Court held that the power to incorporate Customs Act provisions could not be read in a narrow or water-tight manner so as to exclude search merely because search procedure is separately dealt with in criminal procedure law. Reading the statute as a whole, the subject of search was held not foreign to the levy machinery, and the notification was not beyond the scope of Section 12. As to segregation of liability and cross-examination, the Court declined to interfere at the threshold because adjudication was still pending before the competent authority and those matters were left open for consideration at the appropriate stage.
Conclusion: The challenge to the notification failed, and no present direction was issued regarding segregation of liability or cross-examination.
Ratio Decidendi: A fiscal statute empowering incorporation of allied Customs Act provisions must be construed broadly to advance the levy machinery, and a search-related incorporation is not ultra vires merely because search procedure is separately regulated elsewhere.