Search and seizure challenge fails where evidence is lacking, pre-budget stock is unproved, and branded biris remain dutiable.

A challenge to search and seizure failed where allegations of forcible entry and prolonged search were unsupported by substantial evidence. The claim that the seized biris formed part of pre-budget stock and were outside duty liability was rejected because the stock was not correlated with any declared pre-budget inventory. No denial of natural justice was found in the appellate proceedings, as personal hearing had been offered and prior intimation of the hearing was sent, while the adjournment request was belated. The contention that the biris were unbranded also failed because the inventory recorded brand names on the goods, and the revision application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the manner in which the search and seizure was conducted vitiated the proceedings; (ii) whether the claim that the seized biris formed part of pre-budget stock and were therefore not liable to duty was substantiated; (iii) whether there was denial of natural justice in the appellate proceedings; and (iv) whether the seized biris were shown to be unbranded and outside the duty net.

Issue (i): whether the manner in which the search and seizure was conducted vitiated the proceedings.

Analysis: The allegations regarding forcible entry and prolonged search were not supported by substantial evidence showing that the search was conducted contrary to law.

Conclusion: The challenge to the search procedure failed.

Issue (ii): whether the claim that the seized biris formed part of pre-budget stock and were therefore not liable to duty was substantiated.

Analysis: The petitioners did not correlate the seized stock with any pre-budget declared stock, and the assertion remained unproved.

Conclusion: The plea of pre-budget stock was rejected.

Issue (iii): whether there was denial of natural justice in the appellate proceedings.

Analysis: The record showed that an opportunity of personal hearing had been given and that prior intimation of the likely hearing in March 1977 had been sent. The request for adjournment was not made in time.

Conclusion: No denial of natural justice was found.

Issue (iv): whether the seized biris were shown to be unbranded and outside the duty net.

Analysis: The inventory described the biris as bearing different brand names, including Hara Dhaga and Rita, so the factual premise that they were unbranded was incorrect.

Conclusion: The contention that the goods were unbranded failed.

Final Conclusion: All substantive challenges were repelled and the revision application was dismissed.

---