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 Assistant Collector had jurisdiction to require execution of a bond and furnishing of security for provisional release of the seized goods, and whether the challenge to the seizure or allegation of bias warranted interference.
Analysis: The power to release seized goods pending adjudication was expressly traceable to sub-rule (3) of Rule 206 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which authorised release on a proper bond with such security as the Collector might require. The challenge that the seizure itself was without jurisdiction was not accepted, as the department had consistently treated excise duty as payable and the later order only reiterated that position. The allegation of bias was also rejected for want of any specific pleading or prayer challenging the seizure, and a ground unconnected with any relief could not be added merely as a matter of academic interest.
Conclusion: The requirement to execute a bond and furnish security for release of the seized goods was valid and within jurisdiction, and no ground for interference with the writ petition was made out.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing rule expressly permits provisional release of seized excisable goods on bond and security, the customs/excise authority acts within jurisdiction in insisting on those conditions.