Court quashes confiscation order for un-duty paid tobacco, holds seizure improper. Show cause notice time-barred.

The Court quashed the order of confiscation and penalties imposed on the warehouse licensee for non-duty paid un-manufactured tobacco. It held that the sealing of godowns constituted seizure, and the show cause notice was issued beyond the prescribed period, violating provisions of the Customs Act. The Court directed the return of seized goods to the petitioner and reserved opinion on criminal prosecution due to insufficient particulars. The petition was partly allowed, quashing the impugned orders and recovery proceedings, with costs awarded to the petitioner.

---

---

Issues involved: Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing an order, recovery proceedings, and criminal case.

Summary:
1. The petitioner, a warehouse licensee for non-duty paid un-manufactured tobacco, had his godowns sealed and stock seized by excise officers. A show cause notice was issued, leading to confiscation of tobacco and imposition of penalties.

2. An appeal was filed, partly allowed by reducing redemption amount and penalties. A revision before the Central Government is pending, with recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

3. The petitioner challenged the confiscation order citing lack of provision for seizure in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and non-compliance with the Customs Act regarding show cause notice timelines.

4. The respondents argued that no seizure occurred on the sealing date, but later when inventories were prepared. They contended the petitioner must exhaust alternative remedies before approaching the Court.

5. The Court analyzed relevant sections of the Customs Act and emphasized the importance of timely notice issuance for confiscation. It determined that the sealing of godowns constituted seizure, and the show cause notice was issued beyond the prescribed period.

6. Citing precedents, the Court held the impugned order of confiscation and penalties must be quashed, directing the return of seized goods to the petitioner.

7. Regarding criminal prosecution, the Court reserved opinion due to insufficient particulars and granted liberty to the petitioner to raise objections.

8. The petition was partly allowed, quashing the impugned orders and recovery proceedings, with directions for the return of seized goods and costs awarded to the petitioner.

---