{"id":75954,"date":"1967-07-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1967-07-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-vs-a-s-bava-on-27-july-1967"},"modified":"2016-06-03T22:42:27","modified_gmt":"2016-06-03T17:12:27","slug":"collector-of-customs-vs-a-s-bava-on-27-july-1967","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-vs-a-s-bava-on-27-july-1967","title":{"rendered":"Collector Of Customs &amp; &#8230; vs A. S. Bava on 27 July, 1967"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Collector Of Customs &amp; &#8230; vs A. S. Bava on 27 July, 1967<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR   13, \t\t  1968 SCR  (1) 182<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Sikri<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Sikri, S.M.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS &amp; EXCISE,COCHIN &amp; ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nA. S. BAVA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n27\/07\/1967\n\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M.\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M.\nSHAH, J.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1968 AIR   13\t\t  1968 SCR  (1) 182\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1971 SC 454\t (8)\n D\t    1971 SC2280\t (12)\n D\t    1988 SC2010\t (10)\n RF\t    1992 SC2279\t (31)\n\n\nACT:\nCentral\t Excise\t and  Scat  Act (1  of\t1944),\tss.  12\t and\n35--Unfettered\tright  of appeal-Provision of  s.  129,\t Sea\nCustoms\t  Act,\t1878  extended\tto  appeals   under   Excise\nAct--Obligation to deposit amount of duty pending appeal--If\nprovision  in s. 129 one in regard to procedure relating  to\nappeals--Validity of extension.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nUnder s. 35 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (Excise\nAct)  a person aggrieved by any decision or order under\t the\nAct  and rules has an unfettered right of appeal.  Under  s.\n12  of the Act, the Central Government may apply to  appeals\nunder the Excise Act the provisions of the Sea Customs\tAct,\n1878  (Customs Act) dealing with the procedure\trelating  to\nappeals, In exercise of this power, the provisions of s. 129\nof the Customs Act were made applicable to Appeals under the\nExcise\tAct.  The section requires an appellant to  deposit,\npending\t the  appeal,  the  duty  or  penalty  imposed,\t and\nempowers  the  appellate authority, in\this  discretion,  to\ndispense  with\tsuch  deposit  pending\tthe  appeal  in\t any\nparticular case.\nThe  respondent filed an appeal against the duty imposed  on\nhim under the Excise Act and prayed for dispensation of\t the\ndeposit.   The Collector, who was the  appellate  authority,\nrejected the prayer and. when no deposit was made within the\ntime  fixed, dismissed the appeal.  The respondent  filed  a\nwrit  petition in the High Court which was allowed, and\t the\nCollector, was directed to hear the appeal on merits.\nThe Collector appealed to this Court.\nHELD:Since  s.\t35 of the Excise Act gave  a  right  of\nappeal and s.  129  of\tthe Customs Act whittled  down\tthat\nsubstantive   right,  s.  129  could  not  be  regarded\t  as\n\"procedure  relating to appeals\" within s. 12 of the  Excise\nAct.   The High Court was therefore right in F holding\tthat\nthe  application  of s. 129 of the Customs  Act\t to  appeals\nunder  the Excise Act was in excess of the powers  conferred\nunder  s.  12  of  the\tExcise\tAct.   The  facts  that\t  an\nalternative remedy was available to the respondent under the\nExcise Act, and that he invoked the dispensing power of\t the\nappellate authority under s. 129 of the Customs Act, did not\nbar the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ\npetition, especially when the jurisdiction of the  Collector\nto insist upon the deposit of duty pending appeal was itself\nquestioned. [84B-D; 86F-G]\n<a href=\"\/doc\/925351\/\">Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd, v. The State of Madhya\tPra-<\/a>\ndesh, [1953] S.C.R. 987. 4 S.T.C. 114, followed.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos.  2007\t and<br \/>\n2008 of 1966.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeals\t by special leave from the judgment and order  dated<br \/>\nSeptember 28, 1965 of the Kerala High Court in O.P. Nos. 219<br \/>\nand 223 of 1964.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">83<\/span><\/p>\n<p>D.R. Prem, R. N. Sachthey and S. P. Nayar, for the appel-<br \/>\nlants (in both the appeals).\n<\/p>\n<p>S.T. Desai and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the respondent  (in<br \/>\nboth the appeals).\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nSikri,\tJ.-These  appeals, by special  leave,  are  directed<br \/>\nagainst\t the judgment of the High Court of  Kerala  allowing<br \/>\ntwo  petitions\tfiled by the respondent, M\/s.  A.  S.  Bava,<br \/>\nunder art. 226 of the Constitution.  The High Court, by this<br \/>\njudgment,  quashed  two orders dated February 4,  1964,\t and<br \/>\ndirected the Collector of Customs, &amp; Central Excise, Cochin,<br \/>\nto hear the appeals preferred by M\/s.  A. S. Bava.<br \/>\nThe  relevant  facts  are as follows: M \/  s.  A.  S.  Bava.<br \/>\nhereinafter  referred  to as the petitioner, is\t a  firm  of<br \/>\ndealers\t in  Tobacco.  By two orders of\t adjudication  dated<br \/>\nMarch 31, 1963, the Assistant Collector of Customs  demanded<br \/>\nthe payment of duty under Rule 40 of the Central Excise\t and<br \/>\nSalt  Rules,  1944.  The petitioner  filed  appeals  against<br \/>\nthese  orders on or about July 4, 1963, to the Collector  of<br \/>\nCustoms\t  &amp;   Central  Excise.\t The   petitioner   made   a<br \/>\nrepresentation\ton October 3, 1963, requesting that  it\t may<br \/>\nnot  be\t required  to deposit.\tthe  duty  demanded  pending<br \/>\nappeal.\t  The  Collector, by letter dated January  9,  1964,<br \/>\nrejected the representation and requested the petitioner  to<br \/>\ndeposit\t the  duty  within 15 days of  the  receipt  of\t the<br \/>\nletter.\t  On the petitioner failing to deposit\tthe  amount,<br \/>\nthe appeals were dismissed on December 4, 1964.\t  Thereupon,<br \/>\nas already stated, the petitioner filed two petitions  under<br \/>\nart.  226  and the petitions having been  allowed,  and\t the<br \/>\nappellant having obtained special leave, the appeals are now<br \/>\nbefore\tus.   The High Court allowed the  petitions  on\t the<br \/>\nground\tthat the notification No. 68\/63 dated May  4,  1963,<br \/>\nissued\tunder  s.  12  of the Excise  and  Salt\t Act,  1944,<br \/>\nhereinafter referred to as the Excise Act, declaring that s.<br \/>\n129 of the Customs Act, 1962, relating to matters  specified<br \/>\ntherein\t shall\tbe applicable in regard to like\t matters  in<br \/>\nrespect of the duties imposed by s. 3 of the Excise Act\t was<br \/>\nin excess of the powers conferred under s. 12 of the  Excise<br \/>\nAct.   The  High  Court also rejected the  argument  of\t the<br \/>\nCollector of Customs and Central Excise that the  petitioner<br \/>\nhaving\tinvoked\t s.  129 of the Customs Act,  1962,  in\t the<br \/>\nappeals\t preferred by it by praying for the dispensation  of<br \/>\ndeposit, was precluded from proceeding under art. 226 of the<br \/>\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  learned  counsel for the appellants  has  raised  three<br \/>\npoints before us:\n<\/p>\n<p>(1)The\tpetitions under art. 226 were not maintainable\tas<br \/>\nthe  petitioner\t did  not avail himself\t of  the  remedy  of<br \/>\nrevision provided by s. 36 &#8216;of the Excise Act. p(N)1SCI-7(a)<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">84<\/span><br \/>\n(2)The petitioner having availed of the remedy under s.\t 12(<br \/>\nof  the\t Customs  Act  was  debarred  from  challenging\t the<br \/>\nimpugned notification, dated May 4, 1963.<br \/>\n(3)The impugned notification applying s. 129 of the  Custom:<br \/>\nAct was good.\n<\/p>\n<p>There is no force in the first point.  First, the point\t was<br \/>\nno  taken in the High Court.  Secondly, it is  settled\tthat<br \/>\nthe  existence of a remedy by way of revision does  not\t bar<br \/>\nthe  jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a  petition<br \/>\nunder  art. 226.  Moreover the petitioner had  alleged\tthat<br \/>\nthe  Collector had no jurisdiction to demand the deposit  or<br \/>\nduty  pending the appeals as the notification dated  May  4,<br \/>\n1963,  was bad insofar as it applied s. 129 of\tthe  Customs<br \/>\nAct.   In these circumstances it was not necessary  for\t the<br \/>\npetitioner to have filed revisions.\n<\/p>\n<p>There  is  equally  no force in the second  point.   If\t the<br \/>\npetitioner  had not applied for dispensation of the  deposit<br \/>\nof  the duty, the appellants would have contended  that\t the<br \/>\npetitions  under art. 226 were not maintainable.   Moreover,<br \/>\nas  already  stated,  the petitions  raised  a\tquestion  of<br \/>\njurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n<p>To  appreciate the third point, it is necessary\t to  extract<br \/>\nthe relevant statutory provisions.  Section 12 of the Excise<br \/>\nAct authorises the Central Government to apply provisions of<br \/>\nthe Sea Customs Act, 1878, now replaced by the Customs\tAct,<br \/>\n1962, in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;12.    The   Central   Government   may,\t  by<br \/>\n\t      notification in the Official Gazette,  declare<br \/>\n\t      that any of the provisions of the Sea  Customs<br \/>\n\t      Act,   1878,  relating  to  the  levy  of\t  an<br \/>\n\t      exemption\t from  customs duties,\tdrawback  of<br \/>\n\t      duty, such modifications and alterations as it<br \/>\n\t      may  consider necessary or desirable to  adapt<br \/>\n\t      them  to the circumstances, be  applicable  in<br \/>\n\t      regard  to  like\tmatters in  respect  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      duties imposed by section 3&#8221;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      The relevant part of the impugned notification<br \/>\n\t      dated May 4, 1963, reads as follows:<br \/>\n\t      &#8221; In exercise of the powers conferred by\tSec.<br \/>\n\t      12  of the Central Excise &amp; Salt Act, 1944  (1<br \/>\n\t      of 1944) the Central Government declares\tthat<br \/>\n\t      the  provisions of Section 129 of the  Customs<br \/>\n\t      Act,  1962,  relating  to\t matters   specified<br \/>\n\t      herein  shall be applicable in regard to\tlike<br \/>\n\t      matters  in respect of the duties\t imposed  by<br \/>\n\t      Sec. 3 of the first mentioned Act&#8230;.&#8221;<br \/>\n\t      Section 129 of the Customs Act reads thus:<br \/>\n\t      &#8220;129. (1) Where the decision or order appealed<br \/>\n\t      against  relates\tto  any\t duty  demanded\t  in<br \/>\n\t      respect of goods<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      85<\/span><br \/>\n\t      which  are  not under the control\t of  customs<br \/>\n\t      authorities  or any penalty levied under\tthis<br \/>\n\t      Act, any person desirous of appealing  against<br \/>\n\t      such  decision  or order\tshall,\tpending\t the<br \/>\n\t      appeal,  deposit with the proper\tofficer\t the<br \/>\n\t      duty demanded or the penalty levied:<br \/>\n\t      Provided that where in any particular case the<br \/>\n\t      appellate\t authority  is of opinion  that\t the<br \/>\n\t      deposit  of  duty demanded or  penalty  levied<br \/>\n\t      will  cause undue, hardship to the  appellant,<br \/>\n\t      it  may in its discretion dispense  with\tsuch<br \/>\n\t      deposit, either unconditionally or subject  to<br \/>\n\t      such conditions as it may deem fit.<br \/>\n\t      (2)If  upon any such appeal it  is  decided<br \/>\n\t      that the whole or any portion of such duty  or<br \/>\n\t      penalty  was not leviable, the proper  officer<br \/>\n\t      shall  return to the appellant such amount  of<br \/>\n\t      duty or penalty as was not leviable.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>It  will  be noticed that s. 129 requires  an  appellant  to<br \/>\ndeposit\t the duty or penalty levied pending an\tappeal.\t  In<br \/>\nother  words,  before an appeal can be heard  the  appellant<br \/>\nmust deposit the duty or penalty levied.  But under s. 35 of<br \/>\nthe Excise Act, a person ,Aggrieved byany   decision\tor<br \/>\norder has an unfettered right to appeal.  Thequestion<br \/>\nthat arises in these appeals is whether the provisions ofs.<br \/>\n129 of the Customs Act can be said to be provisions relating<br \/>\nto procedure&#8230;&#8230; relating to appeals&#8217; within S. 12 of\t the<br \/>\nExcise Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>As  we have already said, the appeals are filed under S.  35<br \/>\nof  the Excise Act.  Section 129 of the Customs\t Act  debars<br \/>\nthe  hearing  of them unless the duty or  penalty  is  paid.<br \/>\nThis, it seems to us, is not procedure relating to  appeals.<br \/>\nThis Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/925351\/\">Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd., v. The  State<br \/>\nof Madhya Pradesh<\/a>(1) had to consider a similar provision  in<br \/>\ns.  22\tof the Central Provinces and Berar  Sales  Tax\tAct,<br \/>\n1947.  Section 22(1), as originally enacted, read thus:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8221;\t 22.  (1) Any dealer aggrieved by  an  order<br \/>\n\t      under this Act may, in the prescribed  manner,<br \/>\n\t      appeal to the prescribed authority against the<br \/>\n\t      order:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      Provided\tthat no appeal against an  order  of<br \/>\n\t      assessment, with or without penalty, shall  be<br \/>\n\t      entertained by the said authority unless it is<br \/>\n\t      satisfied\t that such amount of tax or  penalty<br \/>\n\t      or  both as the appellant may admit to be\t due<br \/>\n\t      from him, has been paid.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (1) [1953]987;4 S.T.C 114,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      86<\/span><br \/>\n\t      It was amended thus:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;22.  (1)\t Any dealer aggrieved  by  an  order<br \/>\n\t      under this Act May, in the prescribed  manner,<br \/>\n\t      appeal to the prescribed authority against the<br \/>\n\t      order:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      Provided\tthat no appeal against an  order  or<br \/>\n\t      assessment,  with or without penalty shall  be<br \/>\n\t      admitted\tby  the said authority\tunless\tsuch<br \/>\n\t      appeal is accompanied by a satisfactory  proof<br \/>\n\t      of  the payment of the tax, with\tpenalty,  if<br \/>\n\t      any,  in respect of which the appeal has\tbeen<br \/>\n\t      preferred.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>S.R.  Das, J., as he then was, repelled the  argument  of<br \/>\nthe  learned)  Advocate\t that &#8216;the  requirement\t as  to\t the<br \/>\ndeposit\t of the amount of the assessed tax does\t not  affect<br \/>\nthe right of appeal itself, which still remains intact,\t but<br \/>\nonly introduces a new matter of procedure&#8217;, and observed:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;There   can   be\t no  doubt  that   the\t new<br \/>\n\t      requirement &#8216;touches&#8217; the substantive right of<br \/>\n\t      appeal vested in the appellant.  Nor can it be<br \/>\n\t      overlooked   that\t  such\ta   requirement\t  is<br \/>\n\t      calculated to interfere with or fetter, if not<br \/>\n\t      to  impair or imperil, the substantive  right.<br \/>\n\t      The  right that the amended section  gives  is<br \/>\n\t      certainly\t less  than  the  right\t which\t was<br \/>\n\t      available before.\t A provision which is calcu-<br \/>\n\t      lated   to  deprive  the\tappellant   of\t the<br \/>\n\t      unfettered right of appeal cannot be  regarded<br \/>\n\t      as a mere alteration in procedure.  Indeed the<br \/>\n\t      new  requirement\tcannot\tbe  said  merely  to<br \/>\n\t      regulate the exercise of the appellant&#8217;s\tpre-<br \/>\n\t      existing right but in truth whittles down\t the<br \/>\n\t      right itself and cannot be regarded as a\tmere<br \/>\n\t      rule of procedure.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>These observations are fully applicable in the present case.<br \/>\n1  Section 35 of the Excise Act gave a right of appeal,\t but<br \/>\nS.  129\t of the Customs Act whittles  down  the\t substantive<br \/>\nright  of  appeal and accordingly it cannot be\tregarded  as<br \/>\n&#8220;procedure  relating to appeals&#8221; within s. 12 of the  Excise<br \/>\nAct.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  appeals accordingly fail and are dismissed with  costs.<br \/>\nOne hearing fee.\n<\/p>\n<pre>V-P-S\t\t\t  Appeals dismissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">87<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Collector Of Customs &amp; &#8230; vs A. S. Bava on 27 July, 1967 Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 13, 1968 SCR (1) 182 Author: S Sikri Bench: Sikri, S.M. PETITIONER: COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS &amp; EXCISE,COCHIN &amp; ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: A. S. BAVA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/07\/1967 BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-75954","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Collector Of Customs &amp; ... vs A. S. Bava on 27 July, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-vs-a-s-bava-on-27-july-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Collector Of Customs &amp; ... vs A. S. Bava on 27 July, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-vs-a-s-bava-on-27-july-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1967-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-03T17:12:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-customs-vs-a-s-bava-on-27-july-1967#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-customs-vs-a-s-bava-on-27-july-1967\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Collector Of Customs &amp; &#8230; vs A. S. Bava on 27 July, 1967\",\"datePublished\":\"1967-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-03T17:12:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-customs-vs-a-s-bava-on-27-july-1967\"},\"wordCount\":1551,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-customs-vs-a-s-bava-on-27-july-1967#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-customs-vs-a-s-bava-on-27-july-1967\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-customs-vs-a-s-bava-on-27-july-1967\",\"name\":\"Collector Of Customs &amp; ... vs A. S. Bava on 27 July, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1967-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-03T17:12:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-customs-vs-a-s-bava-on-27-july-1967#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-customs-vs-a-s-bava-on-27-july-1967\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-customs-vs-a-s-bava-on-27-july-1967#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Collector Of Customs &amp; &#8230; vs A. S. Bava on 27 July, 1967\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Collector Of Customs &amp; ... vs A. S. Bava on 27 July, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-vs-a-s-bava-on-27-july-1967","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Collector Of Customs &amp; ... vs A. S. Bava on 27 July, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-vs-a-s-bava-on-27-july-1967","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1967-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-03T17:12:27+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-vs-a-s-bava-on-27-july-1967#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-vs-a-s-bava-on-27-july-1967"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Collector Of Customs &amp; &#8230; vs A. S. Bava on 27 July, 1967","datePublished":"1967-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-03T17:12:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-vs-a-s-bava-on-27-july-1967"},"wordCount":1551,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-vs-a-s-bava-on-27-july-1967#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-vs-a-s-bava-on-27-july-1967","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-vs-a-s-bava-on-27-july-1967","name":"Collector Of Customs &amp; ... vs A. S. Bava on 27 July, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1967-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-03T17:12:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-vs-a-s-bava-on-27-july-1967#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-vs-a-s-bava-on-27-july-1967"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-vs-a-s-bava-on-27-july-1967#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Collector Of Customs &amp; &#8230; vs A. S. Bava on 27 July, 1967"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75954","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=75954"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75954\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=75954"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=75954"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=75954"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}