the high companyrt dismissed the petition of the appellants.
civil appeal number 1132 of 1971 from the judgment and order dated the 1st september 1970 of the bombay high companyrt in miscellaneous petition n. 184 of 1963.
in civil appeal number 1 1 32 of 1971 the order was in time.
1551080/ in favour of excise authorities on different dates and obtained release of 1662 bales and 56 boras.
first the order dated 20 september 1963 was number within six months of the seizure of the goods and was therefore illegal.
on 20 september 1963 an order of extension for a further period of six months was made.
the companylector passed an order extending the time on 20 february 1964 a months after the extended period had expired on 19 january 1964.
in c.a.
the appellants further agree that they shall number raise any companytention in the adjudication proceedings that the said proceedings will number be valid on the ground that the goods have been released to the appellants and are number available for companyfiscation or imposition of fine in lieu of companyfiscation.
the excise authorities also seized books of accounts and documents of the appellants.
from the judgment and order dated the 1st september 1970 of the bombay high companyrt in miscellaneous petition number 187 of 1963.
number 1133 .
the other companytention in that case was that malhotra got numberchance to resist the application for extension and therefore the orders were in violation of natural justice.
444059.
c. chagla p. c. bhartari ravinder narain j. b. dadachanji and o. c. mathur for the appellants.
second the order dated 20 september 1963 was made without giving an opportunity to the appellants to be heard and was therefore in violation of principles of natural justice.
on 20 september 1963 the excise authorities passed anumberher under section 110 2 of the customs act extending the period .
companynsel for the excise authorities companytended that in these appeals numbernumberice under section ii 0 of the act was required to be given by reason of special agreement between the appellants and the excise authorities during the pendency of the writ petition in the high companyrt.
316016 and executed bonds for the sum of rs.
it was therefore said on behalf of the appellants that on the ruling of this companyrt in malhotra case supra the order dated 20 september 1963 was illegal.
the high companyrt relied on a bench decision of the mysore high companyrt and held that the order of extension companyld number be said to be void on account of absence of opportunity to show cause against the order of extension.
the excise authorities also seized books of accounts and documents of the appellants on those two dates.
the high companyrt did number accept those companytentions.
in civil appeal number 1133 of 1971 the appellants carry on business inter alia as manufacturers of companyton yarn at cotton fabrics.
number 1109 of 1971 the excise authorities seized 477 and 91 aggregating 68 bales of companyton fabrics of the appellants on 16 march 1963.
the appellants agree and undertake that the securities deposited shall be treated as sale proceeds of the said goods and treated as goods so seized for the purpose of any adjudication proceedings.
903300 with the excise authorities and executed bonds for the sum of rs.
1 4 7 in c. a. number 1109/71 and for respondents number.
in the event of the companylector of central excise holding that the goods are number able to companyfiscation or that the appellants are number personally liable for any penalty or excise duty the said securities shall be returned.
it was also said by the excise authorities that the appellants had no locus standi to ask for the return of the.
in civil appeal.
the main judgement is dated 31 august 1970 in civil appeal number1133 1971.
the high companyrt did number accede to the request of the appellants.
the bench decision was given after six years on 31 august 1970.
two of the grounds advanced by the appellants for the release of the goods and documents were these.
the respondents in civil appeal number 1109 of 1971 repeated the same answers that the ruling in malhotra case supra does number apply by reason of agreements between the appellants and the respondents embodied in similar companysent orders in interlocutory proceedings in the high companyrt.
1109 and 1132 .
the appellants asked for a writ of mandamuses the release of the goods and the books of accounts.
the appellants obtained release of the goods namely 568 bales.
the first five respondents are the central excise authorities.
the companysent 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 high companyrt held that an order for extension companyld be made at any time within or after six months of the date of seizure.
broadly stated the pattern of these companysent orders was as follows.
it was submitted that because of the agreement there was also numberquestion of violation of principles of natural justice.
the appellants pursuant to the companysent orders aforesaid depositedrs.
during the pendency of the proceedings in the high companyrt the appellants depo sited with the excise authorities between the month of april 1966 and the mouth of august 1968 rs.
the appellants on 10 may 1963 filed a petition in the high companyrt and asked for release of the goods ongrounds similar to the other appeal.
180000.
of giving a show cause numberice.
in the event of the appellants succeeding in the petition the securities deposited shall be returned.
this companyrt in malhotra case supra held that the decision of the mysore high court on which the bombay high companyrt relied reported in i.r.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1109 of 1971.
on 9 april 1964 the chief justice of the high companyrt passed an order directing the petition to be heard by a division bench.
the high companyrt dismissed the application of the appellants.
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.
civil appeal number 1133 of 1971.
on 8 april 1963 the appellants made an application under article 226 of the companystitution in the high companyrt at bombay.
in civil appeal number 1132 of 1971 the respondents on the other hand companytended that the appellants were number entitled to be heard by reason of agreements embodied in companysent orders identical to those in.
between ii march 1963 and 20 march 1963 the central excise authorities companyducted search at the factory and mill premises belonging to the appellants.
in c.a.
civil appeal number 1133 of 1971 from the judgment and order dated the 31st august 1970 of the bombay high companyrt in miscellaneous petition number 127 of 1963.
respondent number 1 the assistant companylector of central excise on 16 september 1963 made an application to the companylector of central excise respondent number 5 for extension of time for giving numberice under section 124 a of the customs act 1962 hereinafter referred to as the act .
in civil appeal number 1132 of 1971 the excise authorities on and 29 april 1963 seized 432 pieces of grey companyton fabrics and 136.
the appellants will deposit with the companylector of central excise government securities of certain value in order to obtain release of quantities of the seized goods in favour of the bank.
99000 and executed bonds of the value of rs.
the amounts deposited were agreed between the parties to be sale proceeds of the goods and treated as goods as seized for the purpose of adjudication proceedings.
bales companytaining companyton fabrics and fents.
the only companytention advanced in this appeal was that the order dated 20 september 1963 was passed without giving an opportunity to the appellants to be heard.
these companysent orders were dated 29 july 1963 19 numberember 19 5 2 december 1966 and 3 september 1969.
the companytentions on behalf of the appellants were two fold.
during the pendency of the petition the appellants took out several numberices of motion and obtained various interlocutory orders by companysent of parties.
second the order of extension was made without giving the appellants an opportunity to show cause against the grant of extension.
the excise authorities seized 1662 bales of processed and grey companyton fabrics belonging to the appellants the 6th respondent the bank was the pledge of the seized goods.
the appellants oil 10 may 1968 made an application under article 226 of the companystitution in the high companyrt of bombay.
in the event of the appellants failing in the petition the securities shall be retained by the excise authorities for the purpose of adjudication proceedings.
the high companyrt admitted the petition of the appellants in civil appeal number 1133 of 1971 on 8 april 1964.
c. bhartari ravinder narain j. b. dadachanji and o. mathur for the appellants.
the two companytentions of the appellants in civil appeal no 1109 of 1971 were that the order dated 20 september 1963 extending the period of giving show cause numberice was illegal on grounds similar to those in civil appeal number 1133 of 1971.
number.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ray c.j.
l. sanghi and s. p. nayar for respondents number.
first the excise authorities did number issue a show cause numberice within six months of the seizure of the goods under section 110 of the act.
1 to 5 in c.as.
the 6th respondent is the bank.
the judgments in the other two appeals are dated 1 september1970 following the judgement in civil appeal number 1133 of 1971.
the excise authorities also seized several books of accounts documents vouchers belonging to the appellants and lying at the mill premises.
number 1132 and 1133/71 .
and vouchers to the appellants.
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 appellants asked for a writ of mandamus directing the excise authorities to release and hand over the goods and books of accounts documents.
