https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40632 Central Excise seizure and confiscation powers were held to be strictly confined to the language of the statute and rules, so detention of plant and machinery before adjudication was unauthorised and seizure of goods was not justified on the provisions relied upon. Rule 173-Q, Rule 200 and the Customs Act provision applied by notification were construed narrowly and did not extend to the facts found. However, a writ petition against a show cause notice proposing duty, penalty and confiscation was treated as premature because the issues were still to be decided in statutory adjudication, so interference at that stage was declined. en-us Thu, 13 Jul 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Jan 2026 11:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40632 Central Excise seizure and confiscation powers were held to be strictly confined to the language of the statute and rules, so detention of plant and machinery before adjudication was unauthorised and seizure of goods was not justified on the provisions relied upon. Rule 173-Q, Rule 200 and the Customs Act provision applied by notification were construed narrowly and did not extend to the facts found. However, a writ petition against a show cause notice proposing duty, penalty and confiscation was treated as premature because the issues were still to be decided in statutory adjudication, so interference at that stage was declined. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 13 Jul 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40632