HARBANS LAL versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, CHANDIGARH

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 131 · Decided: 14-07-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

HARBANS LAL 
v. 
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, 
CHANDIGARH 
JULY 14, 1993 
[AM. AHMADI AND MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI, JJ.] 
The Customs Act, 1962: 
A 
B 
Sections 110, 12-f-Seizure of goods and confiscation and imposition C 
of penaltie;-Held, the two provisions are independent. distinct and exclusive 
of each other-Proceedings under section 124 survive even though seized 
goods, stand returned in terms of section 110 after expiry of permissible period 
of seizure. 
Section 110(2) proviso-Seizure period-Extension of-Held, while ex-
D 
tending time, owner of seized goods is entitled to notice and hearing. 
The appellant was arrested on 4.3.70. A huge quantity of gold, 
currency notes etc. found in his possession wer_ seized under Section 110 
of the Costoms Act, 1962. On 27.8.70 i.e. prior to the expiry of six months, E 
the Collector, Central Excise and Customs passed an ex-parte order 
extending the seizure period by six months upto 19.3.71. On 4.3.71 a show 
cause notice under Section 124 of the Act was issued to the appellant 
informing him the grounds of proposed confiscation of the goods and for 
imposition of penalty. The appellant raised a preliminary objection that 
since the seizure period under Section 110 of the Act had been extended F 
ex-parte without affording him an opportunity of being heard, the entire 
proceedings were vitiated and issuance of notfce under Section 124 was 
void ab initio. The Collector directed the objection to be dealt with during 
the course of proceedings under Section 124 of the Act. The appellant filed 
a writ petiti"n under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for quashing G 
the extension order and sequally the show cause notice. The writ petition 
was dismissed. The appellant filed the appeal by special leave. 
On the question : Whether Sections 110 and 124 of the Customs Act, 
1962 are inter-se independent, distinct and exclusive or are they inter· 
woven, inter-connected and inter- playing, 
131 
H 
132 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissio.g the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Sections 110 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 are 
independent, distinct and exclusive of each other, resulting in the survival 
of the proceedings under Section 124, even though the seized goods might 
have to be returned, or stand returned, in terms of Section 110 of the Act, 
B after the expiry of the permissible period of seizure. [138-E-F] 
The Asstt. Collector of .Customs and Ors. v. Charan Das Malhotra, 
[1971] 1 sec 697; relied on. 
Mis Mohan/al Devdanbhai Choksey and Ors. v. M.P. Mondkar and 
C Ors, AIR (1977) Bombay 320; Jeevaraj and Ors. v. Collector of Customs and 
Central Excise, Bangalore, and Ors., (1985) 22 ELT 44 Karnataka and Muni 
Lal v. Collector Central Excise, Chandigarh, AIR (1975) Punjab & Haryana 
130, approved. 
D 
The Appellate Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Madras and 
Anr. v. TN. Khamibati, Crl. Law Journal (1977) 83 (Part 2) 1331, disap· 
proYed. 
1.2. Section 110 in Chapter XIII covering the subject of search, 
seizure and arrest operates during the stage of investigation and the 
E period angle causing affectation under Section 110(2) would only pertain 
to the seizure of goods. The seizure may have after the expiry of six months 
or after the expiry of extended period of six months entitled the person 
concerned the possession of the seized goods, but validity of notice under 
Section 124, is not affected, Section 124 is in Chapter XIV which covers 
the topic of confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalties and on 
F launching proceeding under this Chapter, section 124 enjoins issuance of 
a notice for which no period has been fixed within which notice may be 
given. The subject of seizure of goods and that of confiscation and imposi· 
tion and of penalties are ex-facie exclusive of each other, the goal .of each 
being different the former pertains to investigation whereas the latter goes 
G as a step towards trial. [136-G; 138·C-E] 
Asstt. Collector of Customs & Ors. v. Charan Das Malhotra, [1971] 1 
sec 697, relied on. 
1.3. It is the settled position of law that while extending time under 
H Section 110(2), the owner of the seized goods is entitled to notice because 
> I 
HARBANS LAL ,._ C.C.E. jPUNCHHI. J.j 
133 
the seized goods on the expiry of period of six months are required to be 
A 
returned to him, and if that period was to be extended for another period 
of six months he had the right to be heard. The High Court

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.