1968 (12) 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

....4 from the godown of the appellant whilst the said goods were in the custody of the appellant's banker the Central Bank of India. The appellant moved an application on 14 December 1964 under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the seizure. Rule nisi was issued and the respondents were restrained from removing the said 33 bales of cotton fabrics. On 17 May 1965 the respondent No. 1 the Collector of Central Excise passed an order extending by three months the period contemplated under section 124 of the Sea Customs Act, 1962 (sic) for giving a notice in writing informing the grounds on which it was proposed to confiscate the goods or to impose penalty. The extension was granted under section 110(2) of the Sea Customs Act, 1962 (sic). ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... conditions. The society was a co-operative society and was registered under the relevant Act. The society started weaving work for the appellant. The society obtained a licence as required by the Central Excise and Salt Act. The Excise department granted the society exemption from payment of Excise duty. Thereafter the Excise authorities issued a notice to the appellant in that case demanding a large sum of money as excise duty. It was alleged that it was so payable by the appellant as the latter got the goods from the society and removed goods from the factory of the Society without payment of duty. In the case of Hansraj Gordhandas three notifications were considered. They were dated 5 January, 1957, 31 July 1959 and 30 April 1960. The S....