Collector Custom Excise Cochine Ors, v. A. S. Bava 1968 1 S.C.R. 82, distinguished 98 A C On the facts of the case it companyld number be said that the Assistant Collectorhad numberrelevant material upon which the belief companyld be founded in termsof s. 105 1 of the Customs Act, 1962.
A. Seyid Muhammad, P. C. Chandi, B. D. Sharma and P. Nayar, for the respondents.
25/ per metric ton, the rate being Rs.
98 D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It was companysidered that there had been evasion of duty.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgement of the Allahabad High Court dismissing a writ petition by which the appellant challenged the validity of a warrant issued by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad, authorising the Superintendent Central Excise, Varanasi, to enter certain premises, search the same and seize the documents therefrom.
460 of 1970.
125/ per metric ton was payable.
In February 1962 excise duty was fixed on manufacture of ammonia for the purpose of fertilisers at Rs.
The appellant, which is a public limited companypany having its registered office at Calcutta, owns and runs a factory known as Sahu Chemicals and Fertilisers at Varanasi where chemicals such as ammonia and soda ash are manufactured.
In appeal his judgment was upheld by the Division Bench.
On May 11, 1968, the Assistant Collector issued a warrant for the search and seizure of goods and documents pursuant to which the premises of the factory at Varanasi were searched on May 11, 12 and 13, 1968 and various documents were seized.
C. Chagla and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant.
The second point was that the Sea Customs Act 1878 having been repealed it was number open to the Central Government under s. 12 of the Act to apply s. 105 1 of the Customs Act 1962 to the Act and the numberification dated May 4, 1963 by which this was done was illegal and ultra vires.
For the period from May 1962 to the beginning of March 1964 the appellant had paid duty at the rate of Rs.
Three companytentions were raised before the Division Bench the first was that S. 1.2 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter called, the Act was void as the powers delegated to the Central Government by the legislature were excessive and beyond permissible limits.
The numberification by which the aforesaid duty was payable was later withdrawn by means of another numberification dated March 1, 1964 and thereafter numberexcise duty was required to be paid on the manufacture of ammonia.
125/ per metric ton if it was used for other purposes.
25/ per metric ton on the ground that ammonia had been utilised for the purpose of manufacture of chemical fertiliser.
By the latter numberification the previous numberification applying the provisions of the Sea Customs Act was superseded and numberquestion with regard to the validity of the numberification issued in 1963 and then amended in 1965 companyld survive.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 20, 1969 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
1177 of 1968.
The extension of s. 105 companyld number be said to be illegal merely because under s. 172 of the Sea Customs Act it was a Magistrate who after applying judicial mind had to issue search warrant whereas under the present numberification after the enactment of the Customs Act, 1962, it was the Assistant Collector of Customs performing executive functions who had been empowered to issue a search warrant.
