https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45643 An irregular search under Section 165 CrPC, as incorporated by Section 18 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, did not by itself invalidate the excise proceedings or the penalty and confiscation orders, because the impugned action rested on broader material and not on the search defect alone. A statement recorded before the show-cause notice was also held outside Article 20(3), since no formal accusation of an offence existed when it was taken; the constitutional protection arose only later. The statement was therefore available for consideration, and the excise orders were not disturbed. en-us Wed, 21 Feb 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:24:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45643 An irregular search under Section 165 CrPC, as incorporated by Section 18 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, did not by itself invalidate the excise proceedings or the penalty and confiscation orders, because the impugned action rested on broader material and not on the search defect alone. A statement recorded before the show-cause notice was also held outside Article 20(3), since no formal accusation of an offence existed when it was taken; the constitutional protection arose only later. The statement was therefore available for consideration, and the excise orders were not disturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 21 Feb 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45643