Grover, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court dismissing a writ petition by which the appellant challenged the validity of a warrant issued by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad, authorising the Superintendent, Central Excise, Varanasi, to enter certain premises, search the same and seize the documents therefrom.
(2.) The appellant, which is a public limited company having its registered office at Calcutta, owns and runs a factory known as Sahu Chemicals and fertilizers at Varanasi where chemicals such as ammonia and soda ash are manufactured. In February 1962 excise duty was fixed on manufacture of ammonia for the purpose of fertilizers at Rs. 25/- per metric ton, the rate being Rs. 125/- per metric ton if it was used for other purposes. The notification by which the aforesaid duty was payable was later withdrawn by means of another notification dated March 1, 1964 and thereafter no excise duty was required to be paid on the manufacture of ammonia. For the period from May 1962 to the beginning of March 1964 the appellant had paid duty at the rate of Rs. 25/- per metric ton on the ground that ammonia had been utilised for the, purpose of manufacture of chemical fertilizers. The Central Excise authorities, however, had received information that part of the ammonia had been utilised for purposes other than the manufacture of fertilizers on which higher duty of Rs. 125/- per metric ton was payable. It was considered that there had been evasion of duty. On May 11, 1968, the Assistant Collector issued a warrant for the search and seizure of goods and documents pursuant to which the premises of the factory at Varanasi were searched on May 11, 12 and 13, 1968 and various documents were seized.
(3.) The writ petition was heard in the first instance by the learned single Judge who dismissed it. In appeal his judgment was upheld by the Division Bench. Three contentions were raised before the Division Bench; the first was that Section 12 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter called the "Act" was void as the powers delegated to the Central Government by the legislature were excessive and beyond permissible limits. The second point was that the Sea Customs Act, 1878 having been repealed it was not open to the Central Government under Section 12 of the Act to apply Section 105 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 to the Act and the notification dated May 4. 1963 by which this was done was illegal and ultra vires. The third was that the search and seizure made by the respondents under the impugned authorisation dated August 11, 1968 and the authorisation itself were not in accordance with the provisions of Section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962.;