https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45554 Under the Central Excise Rules, the term "owner" in the warehouse and duty scheme was construed broadly enough to include a pledgee in possession of excisable goods with a substantial interest and control, where limiting liability to the absolute owner would defeat the statutory scheme. On that basis, duty on goods remaining in warehouse beyond the prescribed period was recoverable from the pledgee, and the demand was sustained. The challenge under Article 226 on the ground of pre-Constitution liability also failed, because the proceedings were not concluded before the Constitution came into force and the final demand and proposed certificate action occurred afterwards. en-us Mon, 05 Jan 1953 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Jul 2010 13:55:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45554 Under the Central Excise Rules, the term "owner" in the warehouse and duty scheme was construed broadly enough to include a pledgee in possession of excisable goods with a substantial interest and control, where limiting liability to the absolute owner would defeat the statutory scheme. On that basis, duty on goods remaining in warehouse beyond the prescribed period was recoverable from the pledgee, and the demand was sustained. The challenge under Article 226 on the ground of pre-Constitution liability also failed, because the proceedings were not concluded before the Constitution came into force and the final demand and proposed certificate action occurred afterwards. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 05 Jan 1953 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45554