1975 (3) TMI 31

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of certiorari quashing Exts. P1, P3 and P4. Ext. P1 is a detention memo dated 3-7-1973 issued to the petitioner by the second respondent, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Preventative & Intelligence Unit, I.D.O., Kozhikode, Ext. P3 is the mahazar prepared by the Inspector of Central Excise, IDO, Kozhikode, dated 12-12-1973 for the seizure of six bundles of tobacco weighing 335.800 Kgs. Ext. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts are not competent to retain possession of the goods, and are bound to return the same to the petitioner. On behalf of the respondents it is argued that Ext. P1 is not really an order passed under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 110 of the Act, as there is no reference to that proviso to that sub-section a statement that it was because it was found impracticable to seize the goods in q....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at. The argument of the Counsel is that the period of six months beyond which the detention or seizure could not be extended unless extended by another legally valid order, should be reckoned from the date of the order passed under section 110, whether it be a detention under the proviso to Section 110(1) or an actual seizure under Section 110(1) of the Act. There seems to be considerable force in....