1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Court quashes confiscation order for un-duty paid tobacco, holds seizure improper. Show cause notice time-barred.</h1> 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 ... Seizure 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
