Continuing seizure power and substantial compliance in search procedure governed retention of goods and documents under excise law.

A statutory notification under the Central Excise and Salt Act continued to support seizure power until it was superseded, so goods seized in March 1963 were held to be under a subsisting legal authority. The court also treated retention of goods after the Customs Act, 1962 became applicable as governed by the notice-and-extension scheme in Section 110, holding that extension of time for notice did not require a prior hearing and that the right to return of goods was only deferred. In relation to documents, the search was found to be substantially compliant with the Criminal Procedure Code and excise rules, and any irregularity did not justify return where the documents were relevant to pending adjudication.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Excise Authorities had power to seize the goods in March 1963 and whether the seizure could be sustained after the repeal of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 and before the fresh notification of 4 May 1963; (ii) whether the Petitioners were entitled to return of the goods on the ground that no notice was given within six months and the extension of time under the proviso to Section 110(2) was invalid for want of hearing; (iii) whether the search for and seizure of documents was illegal for non-compliance with Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and whether the documents had to be returned.

Issue (i): Whether the Excise Authorities had power to seize the goods in March 1963 and whether the seizure could be sustained after the repeal of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 and before the fresh notification of 4 May 1963.

Analysis: Section 12 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 authorised the Central Government to apply by notification provisions relating to confiscation and procedure, and the notifications issued thereunder had effect as if enacted in the Act by virtue of Section 38. The adapted provisions of Section 178 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 continued to operate until they were superseded on 4 May 1963. The seizure in March 1963 was therefore made under a subsisting statutory power. The contention based on automatic substitution of the corresponding provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 through the General Clauses Act was rejected, because the notification itself required fresh adaptation before the newer provisions could operate in the excise field.

Conclusion: The seizure of goods in March 1963 was valid and was not without authority of law.

Issue (ii): Whether the Petitioners were entitled to return of the goods on the ground that no notice was given within six months and the extension of time under the proviso to Section 110(2) was invalid for want of hearing.

Analysis: Once the 1962 Customs Act provisions became applicable from 4 May 1963, the continued retention of the goods was treated as a seizure under Section 110(1). The proviso to Section 110(2) permitted extension of time for issue of notice on sufficient cause shown, and the Court held that the provision did not require the extension order to be made within six months from seizure. The Court also held that the Petitioners had no right to prior hearing before extension, because such a hearing would frustrate the investigation and the right to return of the goods was only postponed, not taken away. The extension granted and the subsequent notice were therefore within the permissible statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The Petitioners were not entitled to return of the goods on the ground of expiry of six months or want of hearing before extension.

Issue (iii): Whether the search for and seizure of documents was illegal for non-compliance with Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and whether the documents had to be returned.

Analysis: The search was tested against Section 18 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 read with Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and the power under Rule 201 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Court held that the order of search substantially recorded the grounds of belief, identified the premises and the documents to be searched for, and the search was carried out by a competent officer. Although one procedural step under Section 165 was not expressed with full precision, the Court treated the requirement as substantially complied with in the absence of mala fides. Further, even assuming irregularity, the seizure of the documents would not be vitiated so as to compel their return, particularly because the documents were relevant to pending adjudication proceedings and Section 110(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 also supported their retention after 4 May 1963.

Conclusion: The search and seizure of documents were not liable to be struck down, and the documents were not required to be returned.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the seizure and retention of both goods and documents, found no enforceable right in the Petitioners to immediate return, and held that the writ petition failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory notification incorporating customs provisions into excise law remains in force until superseded, the pre-existing adapted seizure power continues to operate; procedural irregularities in search do not by themselves require return of seized materials absent mala fides, especially where the materials remain relevant to pending adjudication.

---