JUDGMENT P. Govindan Nair, J. 1. An interesting point has been raised by counsel for the petitioner in this writ application. The point made is that a vehicle which has been found carrying excisable goods cannot be seized by virtue of the provisions in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the Act) read with those provisions in the Customs Act, 1962 which have been made applicable by a notification issued under section 12 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 2. Section 12 of the Act enables the Central Government by notification to declare that any of the provisions of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, relating to the levy of and exemption from customs duties, draw back of duty, warehousing, offences and penalties, confiscation and procedure relating to offences and appeals shall, with such modifications and alterations as it may consider necessary or desirable to adapt them to the circumstances, be applicable in regard to like matters in respect of the duties imposed by section 3. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 12 a notification was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 68/63, dated 4th May 1963. That notification declares that the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 105, section 110, sub-section (2) of section 115, clause (a) of section 118, sections 119, 120, 121, 124, 129 and clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962 (LII of 1962), relating to matters specified there in shall be applicable in regard to like matters in respect of the duties imposed by S.3 of first mentioned Act, subject to the modifications and alterations indicated in the notification. The only modification relating to subsection (2) of section 110 that has been effected is to change the reference to the Collector of Customs in the sub-section to Collector of Central Excise as defined in clause (ii) of rule 2of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 3. Now turning to section 11 0 of the Customs Act, 1962 it is seen that provision has been made therein for the seizure of goods if the proper officer has reason to believe that such goods are liable to confiscation under the Act. 4. 3. Now turning to section 11 0 of the Customs Act, 1962 it is seen that provision has been made therein for the seizure of goods if the proper officer has reason to believe that such goods are liable to confiscation under the Act. 4. The facts of the case are that a vehicle bearing registration No. K.L.P. 840 was detected transporting certain goods which are subject to duty under the Act on 24th April 1966. The vehicle is owned by the petitioner. He is carrying on the business of transportation. The goods chargeable to duty belonged to another person. These were marked as cheenikai, an item which is not chargeable to duty under the Act. However, on inspection it was found that the bags contained coffee seeds dutiable under the Act and in relation to which no duty had been paid. The goods were therefore seized and the vehicle detained. The petitioner applied for the release of the vehicle to the Collector of Customs on 7th May 1966. The Collector ordered the release of the articles other than those that were liable to duty under the Act, but did not release the vehicle, or the goods that were liable to duty under the Act. The petitioner is not concerned about the goods. He was however aggrieved by the detention of the vehicle. The vehicle was not released though by Ext. P-6 order, dated 21st May 1965 the petitioner was allowed to remove the vehicle on the execution of a bond, Bill bond, for Rs. 18,000 and odd, and by furnishing cash security of Rs.15,000. He then approached this Court with this writ application and moved C.M.P. 4485 of 1966 praying that this Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to release the Lorry K.L.P. 840 expeditiously. Customs and On that application my learned brother, Justice Raman Nayar passed the following order : "The lorry will be released on the petitioner furnishing cash security (by equitable mortgage of immovable properties or by pledge of Government securities) in the sum of Rs. 25,000 to the satisfaction of the first respondent for the production of the lorry whenever required by the first respondent." 5. The petitioner complied with the direction in the order and the lorry has been released. 6. The question is as I indicated earlier; whether there is power to seize or detain the vehicle K.L.P. 840. 25,000 to the satisfaction of the first respondent for the production of the lorry whenever required by the first respondent." 5. The petitioner complied with the direction in the order and the lorry has been released. 6. The question is as I indicated earlier; whether there is power to seize or detain the vehicle K.L.P. 840. The answer to the question must depend upon the interpretation to be placed on section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 which is in these terms: "110. (1) If the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under this Act, he may seize such goods: Provided that where it is not practicable to seize any such goods, the proper officer 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 there of 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 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 proceedings 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."� 7. This section as already noticed must now be read as a part of the Act. Since section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962 has also become a part of the Act, there can be no doubt that vehicles conveying goods dutiable under the Act, are also liable to confiscation if the goods are liable to confiscation. A vehicle will therefore become sizable under section 110 unless it is possible to hold that the expression 'any goods'� in section 110 will not include a vehicle. A vehicle will therefore become sizable under section 110 unless it is possible to hold that the expression 'any goods'� in section 110 will not include a vehicle. The argument of counsel for the petitioner is that though for the purpose of the Customs Act, goods will include conveyances by virtue of the definition of the term goods in section 2 (22) of the Customs Act, such a meaning cannot be attributed to the term 'goods'� when the section stood alone without the assistance of the definition of the term 'goods'� as contained in section 2 (22) of the Customs Act. This definition has not been incorporated into the Act. And it is stressed that there is no definition of the term goods in the Act. According to counsel, in the circumstances goods in section 110 must be given a limited meaning. The submission is that it must be goods of the type referred to in the preamble to the Act. All ' Goods' in the general sense of the term are not goods liable to duty under the Act and only such goods that are liable to duly can fall within the meaning of the term goods in section 110 as adopted for the purpose of the Act. It is also urged that even if the general meaning of the term 'goods'� is applied, vehicles� will not come within the term. Reference was made to sections 115, 118, and 119 of the Customs Act and it was pointed out that specific provision has been made in that Act for the confiscation of conveyances, packages, and such things that have been utilised for concealing goods with reference to which duties have been imposed under the Customs Act. In the absence of such provisions in the Act, it is contended that there is no power for seizure. My attention was also invited to rule 200 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 framed under the Act. That Rule is in these terms : "200. Power to stop and search vessels, carts, etc., and to seize goods which appear to be contraband. My attention was also invited to rule 200 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 framed under the Act. That Rule is in these terms : "200. Power to stop and search vessels, carts, etc., and to seize goods which appear to be contraband. ” (1) Any officer, who is in Central Excise uniform, or who possesses a card showing his identity, may, if duly empowered by the Collector require any person who is in immediate possession, control or use of any vessel, cart, or other means of conveyance, to stop such vessel, cart or other means of conveyance, and search it, for excisable goods, for the manufacture of matches, and may seize and remove or detain any such goods or articles in respect of which it appears to him that duty should have but has not been levied, or that any contravention of the provisions of the Act, or these Rules has occurred. (2) If any such person fails to comply with such requirement, such officer may use any reasonable means to compel compliance, and the said persons shall be punishable with a penalty which may extend to two thousand rupees" It is urged that it is a very well known rule and that the Act and the Rules must be read together to understand the scope of the Act. The rule just read indicates that there is only power to search the vessel, cart or other means of conveyances and there is no power to seize them. Section 110 read in the light of the rule cannot be understood as conferring power to seize vehicles conveying goods. 8. I see no reason why the ordinary grammatical meaning of the term 'goods'� should not be applied for the purpose of section 110. There is only one limitation introduced by the section and that is that the goods sizable are only those that are confessable under section 115. The dictionary defines goods as movables. I have not come across any meaning attributed to goods in the general sense which would not include a vehicle. So I find it difficult to give any limited meaning to the term goods even if it is to be read with the preamble to the Act and rule 200. I do not think that the Rules of interpretation require that a section should be written down. So I find it difficult to give any limited meaning to the term goods even if it is to be read with the preamble to the Act and rule 200. I do not think that the Rules of interpretation require that a section should be written down. The purpose of the Act, will include effective prevention of the evasions of duty on goods which are manufactured in India and which are subject to duty under the Act. This will involve often confiscation or seizure of goods purpose of evading duty on the goods which are chargeable under the Act. 9. Counsel for the petitioner then contended that by virtue of the provision in section 124 there is no purpose in keeping the vehicle under custody. That section is in these terms : "124. No order confiscating any goods or imposing any penalty on any person shall be made under this Chapter unless the owner of the goods or such person- (a) is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the goods or to impose a penalty; (b) is given an opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation or imposition of penalty mentioned therein ; and (c) is given a resonable opportunity of being heard in the matter: Provided that the notice referred to in clause (a) and the representation referred to in clause (b) may, at the request of the person concerned be oral." One year period has now expired and no action has been taken against the vehicle. This is a point which the petitioner can take before the Collector of Customs. I think this aspect must be considered by the Collector and not by this Court. I therefore decline to go into the question. 10. In the result, I dismiss this writ application but there will be no order as to costs.