LexNEW CENTRAL JUTE MILLS CO. LTD. versus THE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ALLAHABAD & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
i'\'EW CENTRAL JUTE MILLS CO. LTD.
v.
THE ASSISTANT
COLLECTOR OF
CENTRAL EXCISE,
ALLAHABAD & ORS.
September 8, 1970
[J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.]
C<'ntral Excise & Salt Act 18 of 1947-Section 12 whether 1•oid for ex,
ce.v:rire ,/elegation-Power under section to alter provisions of Sea Custo1ns
Act, 1878 in applying then1 to Act 18 of 1947 1111hether includes polt·er to
111uke c·hanges in legislatire policy.
General Clauses Act, s. 8(1)-lvhether e/iables provisions of Customs
Act( 1962 to he applied under s. 12 of Act 18 of 1947 in place of the
p1ovisiOns of Sea Custo1ns Act, 1878.
c·uston1s Act, 1962, S. 105(1)-Conditions for issue of search n·arrant.
The appellant company had a factory at Varanasi at which chemicals
including ammonia were manufactured.
It was considered by the Ccqtral
Excise authorities that there had been evasion of tluty on ammonia by
1he company.
The Assistant Collector . Central Excise issued a warrant
for search and seizure of goods and documents, pursuant to which
the
pr.e.!llises of the aforesaid factory were raided. in May, 1968 and certain
documents seized.
The company filed a writ petition in the High Court
which was dismissed by the Single Judge. The Division bench upheld tlfe
order of the Single Judge.
In appeal to this Court by special leave, the
questions that fell for consideration were (i) Whether s. 12 of the Central
Excise Act was void because the powers delegated to the Central Govern-
ment thereby including the power to make alterations in the Act applied
were excessive; (ii) Whether the Sea Customs Act, 1875 having been',
repealed, it was open thereafter to the Central Government under s. 12 of
the Excise Act to apply s. 105 of the Customs Act
1962; and
(iii)
Whether the Assistant Collector issued the warrants in the present case
after due application of mind to relevant materials and 'facts in terms of
s. 105(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.
·
HELD : (i) In the notifications issued inter a/ia applying s. 105(1)
and s. I JO of the Customs Act, 1962, no such changes had been made
as could possibly. fall within the meaning of the word 'alterations'. The
power to restrict and modify does not import the power to make essen-
tial changes. It is confined to alterations of minor character and no change
in principle is involved.
The word 'alteration' in s. 12 must be under-
stood in the sense in which it was open to the legislature to employ it
legitimately and in a con•titutional manner.
No question was thus in-
volved df delegation either of any essential legislative functions or any
change of legislative policy. [96 B-D]
In re Delhi Laws Act, 1912, [1951] S.C.R. 747, referred to.
(ii) S. 8(1) of the General Clauses Act provides that where any
Central Act repeals and re-enacts with or without modification any pro-
vision of the former enactment then references in any such enactment
or in any instrument, to the provisions so repealed shall, unless a dilferent
intention appears, be construed ai references to the provisions so re-
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
NEW CENTRAL JUTE MILLS\', ASST. COLL. ({jrover, J.)
9:1
enacted. By virtue of this provision 1t could not be disputed that in s. 12
of the Central Excise and Salt Act. 1947, the Customs Act, 1962 can be
read in plac' of the Sea Customs Act. 1878. [96 El
The contention that s. 12 of the Act empowers incorporation of the
provision of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 in the Act itself and, therefore,
s. 8(1) of the General Clauses Act, does not apply could not be accepted.
Section 12 only contained a provision delegating limited powers to the
Ccnlral Government ·to draw upon the provisions of the Sea Customs Act;
1878 for the purpos' of implementing s. 3 of the Act. [96 F; 97 A]
Secretary of State for India in Council v. Hindusthan Co·opel'afiv~ Jn.,
surcince Society, 58 I.A. 259, distinguished;
The Collector of Customs Madras v. Natliel/a Sampatilil Chetty &:
Anr. [1962] 3 S.C.R. 786 referred to.
The extension of s. 105 could not be said to be illegal merely because
under s. 172 of the Sea Customs Act it was a Magistrate who a.J'ter apply-
ing judicial mind had to issue search warrant whereas under the preaent
notification lifter 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. By t,he latter notification die
previous notifiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.