P. Ramachandra Chetty vs Secretary, Ministry Of Food, Govt. Of ... on 19 July, 1978
In Collector, Central Excise v. L. K. N. Jewellers, , it was held (at p. 234):--
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.21 seconds)Innovation, Secunderabad And Anr. vs Central Board Of Excise And Customs And ... on 7 June, 1982
23. Mr. V. R. Reddy next relied upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Collector, Central Excise v. L.K.N. Jewellers, the facts of which case, according to the learned counsel bear a close approximation to the facts of the present case. It must, however, be remembered that, that was a case where the seizure was challenged by way of a writ petition. It was not a case where the matter came up before the Court after adjudication. The matter arose under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, Section 66 whereof empowered any Gold Control Officer, if he has reason to believe that in respect of gold any provision of the said Act has been, or being, or is attempted to be contravened to seize such gold along with the package, covering or receptable etc., in which the gold is found. The Court observed that the existence of a reasonable belief is a condition precedent for exercise of the power of seizure and that, this power cannot be allowed to be used indiscriminately with a view to fishing out material to form a belief and to justify the seizure on the basis of the material so discovered. There can be little quarrel with the above preposition. But, as I have held hereinbefore, the seizure in this case was preceded by a reasonable belief. Therefore there is no question of following the principle of the said decision and directing the return of the seized goods. Moreover, in this case, the adjudication proceedings have also been concluded.
1