Seizure of vehicle carrying dutiable goods upheld under Customs Act powers extended into excise law.

Section 12 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was read as validly extending Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 into excise matters through the notification, so that goods liable to confiscation could be seized and detained. The expression "goods" was given its ordinary grammatical meaning, and the absence of a separate definition in the excise statute did not justify excluding a vehicle used to transport dutiable goods without payment of duty. Section 115 of the Customs Act also supported confiscation where a vehicle was used in connection with liable goods. Rule 200 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as a search provision and not a limit on the seizure power.

---

---

Issues: Whether a vehicle used for transporting excisable goods, found to be carrying dutiable goods without payment of duty, could be seized and detained under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 as applied by notification under Section 12 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: Section 12 authorised application of specified Customs Act provisions to excise duty matters, and the notification brought Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 into the excise regime with necessary modifications. Section 110 permits seizure of goods liable to confiscation, and the Court held that the word "goods" should receive its ordinary grammatical meaning. The absence of a separate definition of "goods" in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 did not justify restricting the term so as to exclude a vehicle. Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962 also supported confiscation where vehicles were used in connection with dutiable goods liable to confiscation. Rule 200 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as a search provision and not as limiting the statutory power of seizure under Section 110.

Conclusion: The vehicle was legally seizable and the challenge to its detention failed.

---