- (1.) This appeal is from the judgment of Mitra, J. dated 27 April, 1967 discharging the rule.
(2.) The appellant asked for a rule to show cause why a Writ of Mandamus should not go to cancel the order dated 1 August, 1966 and also asked for a writ of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 1 August, 1966.
(3.) The appellant's case in short is as follows: 33 bales of cotton fabric were seized on 18 November 1964 from the godown of the appellant whilst the said goods were in the custody of the appellant's banker the Central Bank of India. The appellant moved an application on 14 December 1964 under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the seizure. Rule nisi was issued and the respondents were restrained from removing the said 33 bales of cotton fabrics. On 17 May 1965 the respondent No. 1 the Collector of Central Excise passed an order extending by three months the period contemplated under section 124 of the Sea Customs Act, 1962 (sic) for giving a notice in writing informing the grounds on which it was proposed to confiscate the goods or to impose penalty. The extension was granted under section 110(2) of the Sea Customs Act, 1962 (sic). The appellant on 12 November, 1965 received a notice from the Collector, Central Excise to show cause for the alleged contravention of Rules 174 and 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules namely, failure to take a licence and removal of cotton fabrics without payment of duty. On 21 March 1966 the appellant without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the application No. 467/64 which was made on 14 December 1956 and which was pending, showed cause before the authorities. On 1 August 1966 the respondent Collector passed an adjudication order confiscating the articles seized and imposing a fine of Rs. 8,000/- . On 19 September, 1966 the appellant obtained Rule nisi in matter No. 431 of 1936 in respect of the said order dated 1 August 1966. On 21 April 1967 the rule was discharged. The appellant has preferred an appeal from that decision.;