Case: M/S. Lokenath Tolaram Etc Vs. B. N. Rangwani &amp; Ors

1. These three appeals are by certificate from three judgments of the Bombay High Court. The main judgment is dated 31 August, 1970 in Civil appeal No. 1133 of 1971. The judgments in the other two appeals are dated 1 September, 1970 following the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 1133 of 19712. In Civil Appeal No. 1133 of 1971 the appellants carry on business inter alia as manufacturers of cotton yarn and cotton fabrics. The first five respondents are the Central Excise Authorities. The 6th respondent is the Bank. Between 11 March, 1963 and 20 March, 1963 the Central Excise Authorities conducted search at the factory and mill premises belonging to the appellants. The Excise Authorities seized 1662 bales of processed and grey cotton fabrics belonging to the appellants. The 6th respondent, the Bank was the pledgee of the seized goods. The goods were lying in the godown and bonded store rooms at the mill premises and the Bank was in possession of the same under a cash credit arrangement with the appellants. The Excise Authorities also seized several books of accounts, documents, vouchers belonging to the appellants and lying at the mill premises3. On 8 April, 1963 the appellants made an application under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court at Bombay. Respondent No. 1, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise on 16 September, 1963 made an application to the Collector of Central Excise respondent No. 5 for extension of time for giving notice under Section 124 (a) ofthe Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) On 20 September, 1963 an order of extension for a further period of six months was made. The appellants asked for a writ of mandamus directing the Excise Authorities to release and hand over the goods and books of accounts. documents and vouchers to the appellants4. Two of the grounds advanced by the appellants for the release of the goods and documents were these. First, the Excise Authorities did not issue a "show cause notice" within six months of the seizure of the goods under Section 110 of the Act. Second, the order of extension was made without giving the appellants an opportunity to show cause against the grant of extension. The High Court did not accept those contentions. The High Court held that an order for extension could be made at any time within or after six months of the date of seizure. The High Court relied on a Bench decision of the Mysore High Court and held that the order of extension could not be said to be void on account of absence of opportunity to show cause against the order of extension. The High Court dismissed the application of the appellants15. In Civil Appeal No. 1132 of 1971 the respondents on the other hand contended that the appellants were not entitled to be heard by reason of agreements embodied in consent orders identical to those in Civil Appeal No. 1133 of 1971. The consent orders provided execution of bonds as well as deposit of amounts of money by the appellants in favour of the Excise Authorities against release of the goods. The parties agreed that the deposits of the bonds were to be treated as proceeds of sale of the goods and treated as goods so seized for the purpose of adjudication proceedings. The appellants took delivery of the seized 136 bales and deposited on 5 May, 1965, 5 May, 1966 and 22 April, 1970 in lieu thereof amount aggregating Rs. 99,000 and executed bonds of the value of Rs. 1,80,00016. In Civil Appeal No. 1109 of 1971 the Excise Authorities seized 477 and 91 aggregating 568 bales of cotton fabrics of the appellants on 16 March, 1963. The Excise Authorities also seized books of accounts and documents of the appellants. The appellants on 10 May, 1968 made an application under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Bombay. The appellants asked for a writ of mandamus directing the release of the goods and the books of accounts. The High Court did not accede to the request of the appellants.

Court's reasoning:
18. The Excise Authorities may under Section 110 (1) of the Act seize goods if the proper officer has reason to believe that the goods are liable to confiscation. Where goods are seized under Section 110 (1) of the Act and no notice in respect thereof is given under Section 124 (a) of the Act within six months of the seizure of the goods the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. Section 124 (a) of the Act states that no order confiscating any goods or imposing any penalty on any person shall be made under Chapter XIV of the Act unless the owner of the goods or such person is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds of confiscation or imposition of penalty. Section 110 (2) of the Act contains a proviso that the period of six months may on sufficient cause being shown be extended by the Collector of Customs for a period not exceeding six months19. In Civil Appeals Nos. 1133 and 1109 of 1971 the order of extension on 20 September, 1963 was beyond the period of six months from the date of seizure. In Civil Appeal No. 1132 of 1971 the order was in time. Therefore, the orders for extension of time to serve the notice under Section 124 (a) of the Act could have been exposed to infirmities of limitation as to time (though we do not express any opinion upon it) and observance of principles of natural justice but for the special agreement in the consent orders between the parties in these appeals.All the goods have already been released to the appellants. The release is by reason of terms of consent by and between the appellants and the Excise Authorities during the pendency of the appeals in the Bombay High CourtThe contention of the appellants is unsound and unacceptable. The amounts of money which are now retained by the Excise Authorities represent the goods by reason of special agreement between the parties. These agreements came into existence before as well as after 20 September, 1963. After the appellants had obtained release of the goods in accordance with the terms of special agreement embodied in the consent terms, the goods went out of the province of application of S. 110 of the Act for extension of time for serving a notice21. There cannot be any question of violation of principles of natural justice or any lack of opportunity to the appellants to show cause in regard to the order dated 20 September, 1963 extending the time for giving the notice under Section 124 of the Act contemplated in Section 110 of the Act. The appellants themselves asked for release of the goods on depositing moneys and executing bonds representing the value of the goods released. The agreements in the present appeals establish that the parties on consideration of all the facts and circumstances waived notice for extending the time within six months of the seizure of the goods22. The Excise Authorities are also right in their contention that the appellants have no locus standi to ask for release of the goods because the Bank was in possession of the goods as the pledgee and the Excise Authorities seized the goods from the possession of the Bank23. The moneys deposited and the bonds executed by the appellants are really the substituted goods for the purpose of adjudication as to whether there can be any confiscation of goods or imposition of penalty. The parties agreed that the Excise Authorities would retain he securities for the purpose of adjudication proceedings in the event of failure of the appellants in the writ petitions filed by them24. The goods were seized in 1963. Long time has lapsed. The Excise Authorities should immediately take steps and complete the adjudication proceedings.