JUDGMENT
A.P. Misra, J
1. In the present case since counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been filed and having heard counsel for both the parties we have decided to dispose of finally this writ petition at the admission stage.
2. The petitioner is a partnership firm. According to the petition it does not roll Copper Alloy Circules and only manufactures billets and gets them rolled at the various Rolling Mills. By means of this writ petition the petitioner sought for a writ of mandamus for a direction to the respondents to release all the detained goods and for the return of the seized records.
3. The main contention of the petitioner is that since the Collector, Central Excise did not extend the statutory period of six months for issue of show cause notice in terms of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, the goods detained and the documents seized are liable to be released and returned. It was further urged that the act of respondent is only for harassment as the goods which have been detained are duty paid.
4. According to the respondents all the goods seized are the goods liable for excise duty under First Schedule under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The goods trimmed and untrimmed circules made out of copper and copper alloys are excisable goods, the petitioner has to produce the document duly supported that the duty was paid on the said goods. They have also pointed out that, as per annexure-4 and A-10, 12 brass blocks weighing 1022.000 Kgs. were detained whereas it has been reported the weight of 12 brass blocks to be 1024 Kgs.
5. The first contention for the petitioner is that since the Collector Central Excise has not extended the statutory period of six months as contemplated under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, which expired on 12th September, 1985, they are bound to return the goods under the said section. For appreciating this part of the argument, Section 110 of the aforesaid Act is reproduced below :
“110. Seizure of goods, documents and things – (1) If the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under this Act, he may sieze such goods :
Provided that where it is not practicable to seize any such goods, the proper office may serve on the owner of the goods an order that he shall not remove, part with, or otherwise deal with the goods except with the previous permission of such officer.
(2) Where any goods are seized under Sub-section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of Section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized :
Provided that the aforesaid period of six months may, on sufficient cause being shown, be extended by the Collector of Customs for a period of not exceeding six months.
(3) The proper officer may seize any documents or things which, in his opinion, will be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act.
(4) The person from whose custody any documents are seized under Sub-section (3) shall be entitled to make copies thereof or take extracts therefrom in the presence of an officer of customs.”
Under sub-clause (2) if no notice in respect of the seized goods under Sub-section (1) is given under clause (a) of Section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods are liable to be returned to the person concerned from whose possession they were seized provided the aforesaid period of six months may, on sufficient cause being shown, be extended by the Collector of the Customs for a period not exceeding six months. The argument is that even this extended period of six months as stipulated under the proviso to Sub-section (2) has also expired and since no notice in respect thereof has been given under clause (a) of Section 124, the goods are liable to be returned to the petitioner. In the present case the Collector Central Excise has issued a notice under Section 110 of the Act on 30th August, 1985 to show cause as to why not the statutory period of six months should be extended by further period of six months. The argument for the respondents is that after the show cause notice, as the petitioner did not appeal before the Collector Central Excise, no orders were passed in the present case. What is to be examined is whether any notice under Section 124 has been issued or not within the maximum permissible period as stipulated under the said section. In the present case it is not in dispute that no notice under Section 124(a) was issued within this period. However, in this case it is not necessary for us to decide the implication of Sub-section (2) of section 110 of its facts. In the Supplementary Counter Affidavit the respondent has fairly conceded that the statutory period prescribed under the Act was not extended which expired on 12th September 1985, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to receive back his goods. It cannot be doubted that the statutory period has come to an end, and if not notice as stipulated under Section 110(2) was given by the authorities, the goods detained are liable to be returned to the person concerned from whose possession they were seized. In the present case it is not in. dispute that the goods were seized by the respondents from the petitioner and in view of the aforesaid facts the goods seized are liable to be returned to the petitioner forthwith.
6. Next, it was urged by the petitioner that the respondents are also liable to return the documents which may have seized alongwith the aforesaid goods. The contention is that the present show cause notice was for the seizure of the goods and that having failed, there is not other purpose for which they could retain those documents. Thus, if the seized goods are to be returned, the documents seized alongwith the same are also liable to be returned. It was further urged that in any case inordinate delay has already been caused and since no action has been taken by the respondents, they have no right to retain the same. Such retention is, in fact, for the harassment of the petitioner.
7. We do not find any force in it. It is significant to mention that Section 110(1) of the aforesaid Act deals with the seizure of the goods, Sub-section (2) stipulated the condition when the seized goods are to be returned and sub-sections (3) and (4) deal with the documents seized. The Legislature in its wisdom though thought it proper to lay down condition and time when the goods detained ought to be released but has hot laid down the return of the documents alongwith the seized goods. The power to seize the goods is coupled with the power to seize any document. The purpose of the latter is not only confined to the seized goods but has been widened for the purpose, useful or relevant to any proceeding under this Act. In view of this it cannot be urged that on account of return of the seized goods, the documents seized should also be returned. In the show cause notice dated 5th December, 1985 issued by the Assistant Director of the Directorate of Anti-Evasion (Central Excise) Kanpur Regional Unit, which is Annexure-8-A.1 to the rejoinder affidavit it is stated that the petitioner is manufacturer of billets (gullies) of copper falling under T.I. 26A and have contravened the provisions of Rule 52-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 inasmuch as they had in their possession of brass blocks without the cover of any document showing payment of Central Excise Duty or invoices showing legitimate receipt of the goods. Thus respondents have right to investigate on the basis of the documents seized, whether the transaction, as revealed from it, indicates evasion of excise duty or not. The rentention of documents, for this purpose which has been mentioned in the aforesaid show cause notice cannot be said to be either improper or illegal. In the Supplementary Counter Affidavit it has been specifically mentioned that investigation is going on and if the documents are returned, the investigation against the petitioner for evading excise duty cannot be proceeded with.
8. It was next urged that seizure of the documents was made on 13-3-1985 long time back and on account of this he is being adversely affected as the same are required by him for other proceedings. He has not specifically mentioned as to for what purpose those documents are required. In its absence we feel petitioner’s this grievance is misconceived. Under Sub-section (4) of Section 110 there is a clear provision that he is entitled to make copies thereof or to take extract therefrom in the presence of the officers of the Customs from the documents seized.
9. It is true that the Legislature has not laid down any period as to when the documents were to be returned. However, it is expected that the authorities would only retain it so long as they require for the investigation or other purposes as required under the Act but could not retain the same for inordinate long period. As we have said the retention is only for the purpose as mentioned in sub-clause (3) of the Section 110. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents urged that on account of the filing of this writ petition further proceeding was held up but after its disposal now they would expeditiously conclude the matter. We find there was no stay order in this writ petition, thus delay in investigation on this account should not have been made. However, we have no doubt the respondents shall expeditiously investigate the matter and conclude the investigation at an early date.
10. In view of the aforesaid observations, we partly allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to return the detained goods forthwith However, no relief for the return of the documents could be granted to the petitioner in view of the aforesaid observations. Costs on parties.